IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE NDPS CASES AT GREATER

MUMBAI

A1 - Aryan Shah Rukh Khan

A2 - Arbaaz A. Merchant

A3 - Munmun Amit Kumar Dhamecha (A3) Vs.

R - Union of India

NOTE

 A1 A2 A3 - Arrested on 3.10.2021 @Pg. 2

 Seized - 13g Cocaine – 5g Mephedrone (MD), 21g Charas - 22 Pills MDMA (Ecstacy) &
1,33,000/- INR @Pg. 2
 Voluntary statements of accused recorded – S.67 of NDPS act @Pg. 2
 On basis panchanama 2.10.2021 + statements u/s 67 – accused arrested for –
consumption + sale + purchase u/s 8(c) r/w S.20(b), 27, 28, 29, 35 of NDPS Act @Pg. 3
 A1 - sought bail – grounds – no narcotic drugs seized from him – drugs found in small
quantity – S.37(1) doesn’t apply – nothing to show A1 is connected to production –
manufacture – possession – sale – purchase – transport – import - export of drugs – or
financing - illicit trafficking - harbouring of drug offenders - also argued – A1 has no
criminal antecedents @Pg. 3
 R opposed bail - all accused - inextricably connected - A1 & A2 - travelled together -
common intent – A1 has a role in procurement & consumption of drugs – A1 procured
drugs from A2 – A2 caught with 6g Charas - A1 – appeared to be in touch with supposed
international drug network for illicit procurement of drugs – Supplier of A1 – A17 –
caught with 2.6g Ganja. @Pg. 4-5.
 Further contended - A5 purchased ecstasy pills from A9 @Pg. 6
 A1 argue – nothing recovered from A1 – A1 intercepted with A2 – 6g Charas found on
A2 – no nexus & no conspiracy between A1 & other accused – S.29 not applicable @Pg.
6 - nothing to connect A1 with drugs recovered from other accused – A1 - had no
knowledge of possession of drugs by A2 @Pg. 9
 Court held – nothing found on A1 – drugs found in shoe of A2 – A1 & A2 travelled
together – been friends for a while – apprehended together – in voluntary statements –
said consuming substances for enjoyment – thus A1 knew A2 had drugs in shoe @Pg. 9-
10 – also - Absence of contraband on the individual does not absolve scrutiny under S.37
(relied on Md. Nawaz Khan case) @Pg. 10
 Next argument – 6g Charas found on A2 – meant only for consumption – not for sale or
rigours of S.37 @Pg. 11
 R argued – all accused – part of drug network – role cannot be segregated from each
other - not the first time where A1 involved with drug activity – WhatsApp chats
showing involvement with foreigners – reference made to hard drugs in bulk quantity –
cannot be meant for consumption – suspected to be part of international drug racket
@Pg. 11
 Court held - WhatsApp chats shown to Court – reference to bulk quantity – chats of A1
about drugs with unknown persons – prima facie material - showing A1 was in frequent
contact with drug deals @Pg. 11
 A1 argued WhatsApp chats - without a certificate of S.65(b) evidence act – inadmissible
– relied on Rakesh Singla case – Court held – in Rakesh Singla charge sheet was filed –
here only stage of investigation – facts differ – not applicable @Pg. 11-12
 A1 A2 A3 argued - cannot be connected with recovery of drugs from the other accused –
rely on Amarsingh Barot & other cases – which held - contraband cannot be calculated
together to hold that it is commercial quantity - also - no evidence to show criminal
conspiracy u/s 29 - A1 argued - merely because some accused – possession of drugs -
cannot constitute independent evidence of criminal conspiracy @Pg. 12
 R relied on Mahimananda case – held - direct evidence may not prove conspiracy -
conspiracy takes place secretly - only conspirators aware – Court has the power to rely
upon other material. @Pg. 12
 Court held - incriminating evidence - Whatsapp chat - show nexus of A1 & A2 with
suppliers & peddlers – A1-8 - arrested together on Cruise - found with contraband - R
received information - rave party organized on Cruise - accused persons arriving with
contraband - in pursuance of this information - raid was effected – During the
interrogation – accused disclosed names of suppliers - all these facts - prima-facie show
- accused acted in conspiracy with each other - it appears – case of conspiracy &
abetment – S.29 of NDPS act is applicable. @Pg. 13
 A2 argues - no panchanama of recovery of mobiles of A1 & A2 - R shows papers - which
reflect that both the accused voluntarily surrendered their mobiles - at time of
interrogation. @Pg. 13
 A3 argues – R failed to show - nexus of A3 with case – drugs found on the floor of the
room of A3 – not on person - even if drugs found – it is of small quantity – no bar of S.37
to grant bail @Pg. 14
 R argues – 5g of Hashish from her conscious possession - A3 is also part of the network
& her case cannot be considered in isolation – Relies on Showik Chakraborty (Rhea
Chakraborty) case – accused was an important link in chain of drug dealers – disclosure
of each of them has led to the discovery – rigours of S.37 apply @Pg. 15
 Court held - the panchanama & A3 voluntary statement – shows contraband is hers - also
- raid was effected on the basis of credible information received by the NCB – no merit in
A3 argument @Pg. 15
 Prima-facie - accused are a part of a larger network of drugs - As held in Showik
Chakraborty’s case - accused are part of the conspiracy - each of them is liable for the
entire quantity of drugs seized - Case of each accused can not be segregated from each
other - cannot be considered in isolation. @Pg. 16
 Conditions while granting bail – in S.37(1) (b) (ii) -when there are reasonable grounds to
believe that accused is not guilty of such offence & that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. @Pg. 16-17
 Along with gravity & seriousness of offence - the antecedents of the accused - possibility
of tampering with evidence - likelihood of commission of offence if released on bail -
relevant factors - need to be taken into consideration while deciding bail @Pg. 17
 Based on evidence on record - cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that A1, A2 & A3 are not guilty of such offence - they are not likely to commit
such offence while on bail - For all the above reasons – Court held that bail applications
are liable to be rejected. @Pg. 18