Breaking: Aryan Khan, Arbaz Merchant, and Munmun Dhamecha Remanded To NCB Custody Till October 7 in Cruise Ship Drug Case

Aryan Khan, son of actor Shahrukh Khan and Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha have been remanded to the custody of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) until October 7 in connection with the seizure of drugs on a luxury cruise ship off the Mumbai coast. Khan has been booked under sections 8(C) read with 20, 35 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.  

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate RM Nerlikar noted that the new incriminating material found against the accused persons by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)  coupled with the fresh arrests need to be corroborated. It was also observed that the new facts need to be verified. 

"I am of the view that investigation is of prime importance. Considering this aspect, the presence of the accused with NCB is necessary", the Court ruled. 

The remand application for Aryan Khan submitted by the NCB on Monday alleged that shocking incriminating material had been found on Khan's phone in the form of pictures. It was further alleged that Khan was responsible for procuring drugs for further distribution. 

Submissions by ASG Anil Singh 

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appearing for the NCB sought further custody of the accused persons until October 11. He submitted before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate RM Nerlikar that there were links found in the Whatsapp chats on Khan's phone that indicates the existence of an 'international racket'. 

"There are five more connected persons who are under investigation and likely to be produced before this Court. In total there are 8 accused related to the ship. One more person is also apprehended", ASG Anil Singh further averred. He also mentioned that the NCB had procured 'commercial quantity' of drugs when the 9th accused, a supplier from Juhu was arrested. 

ASG Singh further submitted that although it will be argued by the opposing counsels that the offences the accused persons have been charged with are all bailable offences, he sought to rely on three judgments of Bombay High Court which stipulate that all offences of NDPS are not bailable in nature. 

Reliance was also placed by ASG Singh on the bail order of the Bombay High Court pertaining to film actor Rhea Chakraborty in the case registered by the NCB on the allegation that she had facilitated the procurement of drugs for the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput. He contended that the Bombay High Court had ruled that offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable. 

"Ultimately we have to see the purpose and object of the Act. It is to remove the drug menace from society. You can't claim that just because you are found with a small quantity or nothing, you are entitled for bail. We have to reach the suppliers, where the financing is happening. We are just saying to grant us custody for some more days. We have to unearth the nexus.", ASG Singh further argued. 

He further contended that such 'high profile' people are considered role models and thus advocated that steps must be taken to end instances of such a drug menace. 

Submissions by Satish Maneshinde

Advocate Satish Maneshinde appearing for Aryan Khan submitted before the Court that due credence must be given to the facts of the instant case. 

"I landed there with a friend of mine on an invite from the organisers. I got to know the best suit is allotted to me. I have not paid anything for this party. My bag was searched but nothing was found. After some time, they took custody of my phone and began interrogating me. Mr Merchant is a friend of mine. He was found in possession and we were arrested", he argued. 

Advocate Maneshinde further submitted before the Court that only a small quantity had been recovered from Arbaaz Merchant, Khan's friend and that none of the other drugs had been seized from them. 

To this the Court enquired, "how much was seized from the friend?"

In response, NCB stated that six grams of Charas had been seized.  

Opining that Khan is entitled to bail even if the offences he has been charged with are non-bailable in nature, he argued, 

"Even if the offences are non-bailable as argued, based on Rhea's case, I am entitled to bail. There, Section 27A was invoked, for financing. If material is seized from other accused, that cannot be foisted on me."

He further contended that first the custody application of Khan must be decided by the Court before a ruling is passed on the bail application. It was also argued that none of the provisions invoked such as sections 8(C) read with 20, 35 and 27 of the NDPS Act act as an embargo for bail application under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 

Advocate Maneshinde also relied on a judgment to show that commercial quantity found with one accused cannot be used for incriminating another accused. A Supreme Court judgment was also referred to to argue that Whatsapp chats cannot be used for incriminating an accused. 

Reliance was further placed on the judgment of Justice Nitin Sambre of Bombay High Court in the case of Shoyab Sajjad Khan v. State of Maharashtra where bail had been granted despite a total of 400 grams of drugs being recovered from one accused. 

Referring to the bail order of the Bombay High Court pertaining to film actor Rhea Chakraborty, the counsel argued that the order does not apply in the facts of the instant case. 

"There are claims that she was financing and harbouring. Financing will have to be interpreted to mean where financing is a mode of livelihood in some way. Here, there is no charge of even harbouring", advocate Maneshinde argued further. 

The counsel further referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment in Ram Bharose Lal v. State Of U.P  to contend that bail can also be granted in non-bailable offences. 

"We (Aryan and Arbaaz) were found together but that doesn't mean there is anything in common. To grant prayer for remand even for a day, allegations will have to be seen. Whatever is seized from others can't be foisted on me. The chats are not relevant to my custody", the counsel argued further. 

It was further pointed out that Khan does not have any criminal antecedents and that he cooperated with the police officers during the search and seizure. 

"I did not run away on seeing the officers. I allowed them to check. Therefore, custody should not be given to them. Mere chatting on the phone without corroboration doesn't make an offence", advocate Maneshinde contended against the remand of Khan. 

He further urged the Court to issue a clarification in the remand order from yesterday stating that none of the drugs seized were found to be in the possession of Khan. 

Submissions by Tareq Sayed 

Advocate Tareq Sayed appearing for accused Arbaz Merchant argued that the remand application is absolutely silent on the aspect as to what quantity has been seized from each of the accused persons. He sought the Court's leave to get served with a copy of the panchnama for proper adjudication. 

"The quantity is not there as to what is seized from whom. The remand is absolutely silent on this aspect. They are only saying that I was going to use it", he argued. 

He further submitted that all the recoveries had been made under one panchnama. Accordingly, Khan had no recoveries whereas Merchant has been alleged to be in possession of 5 grams. The counsel also emphasised that other seizures such as MDMA, cocaine are not attributed to the accused. 

"Has the NCB come here to interrogate two boys, one found with nothing, the other found with 5gms, claiming that he was allegedly going to consume. They need to point out first the connection between us and if there has been any recovery", the counsel remarked. 

It was further pointed out to the Court that the ship had not left the shore and that the accused persons were intercepted only at the dock. 

It was further submitted that after two days of remand, the NCB has only recovered chats between the two accused persons. Thus, it was argued that charges will have to be framed only on the quantity of drugs recovered and not on the basis of the whatsapp chats. 

He also echoed Maneshinde's argument that the two accused persons are not seasoned criminals and that they had thoroughly cooporated with the investigation. 

Submissions by Ali Kaashif

Advcoate Ali Kaashif appearing for accused Munmun Dhamecha argued that the accused was there at the party after someone invited her and that she had nothing to do with the seizure of drugs or the other two accused persons (Aryan Khan and Arbaaz Merchant). He contended that if need if the accused must be taken into judicial custody and thus opposed further remand. 

Courtroom exchange 

Responding to the aforementioned submissions, ASG Anil Singh contended that all the opposing arguments had been considered by the Bombay High Court in the bail order of Rhea Chakraborty wherein it had been held that NDPS offences are non-bailable. He also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh. 

"There are some chats about payments not been made, code words are used, there are chats about bulk purchases. Some are from July 2020. The courts have not said chats cannot be used to refuse custody", the ASG argued. 

To this, the Bench enquired, "What are you going to prove by the said chats?"

In response, the ASG submitted, "This shows that there was some connection, there was regular contact with the person"

The ASG further contended that pursuant to a recent Supreme Court judgment, just because an accused person is not found in possession of drugs, it does not make him innocent.

"We are at the stage of remand. Everything will have to be investigated", the ASG further remarked. 

At this point, advocate Maneshinde pointed out that in the particular Supreme Court case the contraband had been recovered from the car. However, in the instant case, the ship was not owned by the accused persons. He argued that the NCB should have then arrested all the people on board the ship. 

The Court then proceeded to enquire the quantity of contraband substances recovered from each of the accused persons.

It was stated by the NCB that 6 grams of charas (small quanitity) was recovered from Merchant and 5 grams of charas (small quanity) was recovered from Munmun Dhamecha. It was futher submitted by the NCB that 5 grams of MDMA and 10 grams of cocaine had been recovered from Vikrant. 

Advocate Sameer Wankhede appearing for NCB contended that the accused persons are required in custody to ascertain their connection with the organizers.

In response advocate Maneshinde remarked, "there is nothing to establish my connection with people on the ship"

Arguing vehemently for the remand of the accused persons, NCB's counsel Advocate Advait Sethna remarked, "The picture should not be projected... We need to confront and need custody of all the 8 accused. Doodth ka doodth and pani ka pani. Let all of them be confronted so that the truth comes out."

Background

On Sunday, a holiday court at Mumbai had remanded actor Aryan Khan along with Arbaaz Merchant,

and Munmun Dhamecha in the custody of Narcotics Control Bureau's (NCB) custody till today in connection with the seizure of drugs on the luxury cruise ship off the Mumbai coast. They were arrested at 2 pm on Sunday.

The second group of accused persons who hail from Delhi had also been produced for their remand today. They include Ishmeet Singh Chadha , Mohak Jaiswal , Gomit Chopra and Vikrant Chhokar.  

Click Here To Read/ Download Order