[BREAKING] Sharukhan Khan's son Aryan Khan denied bail by Mumbai court in cruise ship drug case

A Mumbai court on Friday reject the bail plea of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan's son Aryan Khan in the cruise ship drug case, on the ground that the plea was not maintainable. .Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) RM Nerlikar accepted the argument of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) that only special court of sessions has jurisdiction to hear the matter and not the Magistrate..The Narcotics Control Bureau on Friday challenged the maintainability of the bail plea with Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh submitting that arguments would have to be heard first on maintainability before hearing on merits on plea."We are raising issue on maintainability. So answer that first," said ASG to Khan's counsel Satish Maneshinde."All arguments will be argued at one stage," said Maneshinde."No that cannot be. Once maintainability is raised, then that has to be heard first," the ASG retorted..The Court initially said that the issue of maintainability can be raised along with the reply on merits and there is no requirement for a separate application. However, the ASG insisted that the Sessions court has to hear the bail application in view of the facts of the case."If there are 10 accused in one offence, same FIR, even if one accused is found with small quantity, and others not, then there cannot be segregation, and the sessions court is supposed to hear," the ASG submitted.He then proceeded to make arguments on maintainability. The objection raised by NCB was that only the special court of sessions has the jurisdiction to try the case and hence hear the a bail application too."The jurisdiction of this court is within the confines of Section 36A of the NDPS Act. It is the prosecution's case that all persons arrayed in the crime are alleged to have committed offences exclusively triable by special court of sessions," the NCB submitted in its reply.In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India in which it was held that all offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable and cognizable in nature."Hence, they are triable only by special court. Since the offence are triable exclusively by special court, the CMM has no jurisdiction to even entertain this application," the NCB contended..Satish Maneshinde, however, responded that the power to grant bail is inherently provided in Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."Kindly see sub-section 5 of Section 36. Offences punishable for more than 3 years.. will be tried summarily. Who will try? Magistrate court. Section 437 of CrPC, the powers to grant bail is inherently given in CRPC," he said.The embargo under Section 437 on courts other than High Court or Sessions Court for grant of bail, is that the offence should be punishable by death or life imprisonment, Maneshinde pointed out. "That is not applicable to me," he said."There is no prohibition on the Magistrate (to hear bail plea) because this court is covered by CrPC and the magistrate has jurisdiction to try several offences," Maneshinde added.In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment in Sanjay Malshe v. State of Maharashtra. .On the merits, Maneshinde highlighted how no recoveries were made from Khan. "The High Court has granted bail for small quantity, I have been found with nothing. Not even one gram, nothing," it was submitted.They have alleged charges of conspiracy but there is nothing to disclose any conspiracy, he added. "I am a 23 yr old with no prior antecedents. I am from respectable family, my parents, Siblings are here. I hold Indian passport. I have roots in the society, cannot abscond. There is no question of tampering of evidence or accused. The electronic evidence is taken, the other accused are in custody," Maneshinde said concluding his arguments..To this the ASG responded that in a case where there are 17 accused, Khan is one the accused, and it will be important to find out the nexus with the other co-accused. “Can there be two chargesheets, two trials? The connection, involvement everything has to be seen. What if they are released and they tamper with the evidence?” Singh argued. .In response and before the Judge proceeded to pass the order, Maneshinde remarked, “Just because a person is influential does not mean he will tamper. I have not used my influence so far.”.Along with Maneshinde, Advocate Taraq Sayed appearing for Arbaaz Merchant and Advocate Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh appearing for Munmun Dhamecha also argued for bail of their respective clients. They were both also rejected..ASG was assisted by Special Public Prosecutor Advait Sethna and Advocate Shreeram Shirsat.