[Cruise Ship drugs case] No evidence to suggest that Avin Sahu was part of a larger network: Mumbai Court

A Mumbai Court on Tuesday observed that there was no prima facie material to indicate that Avin Sahu, accused in the cruise ship drug case involving Aryan Khan, was part of a larger network..Additional Sessions Judge VV Patil, Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, thus granted bail to Sahu in the case..Judge Patil observed that Sahu’s case could be distinguished from the case of other accused in whose respect evidence was present.“Material on record prima facie shows that Section 29 (conspiracy) of the NDPS Act is not applicable. Therefore rigours of Section 3 of the NDPS Act would not apply,” the judge observed while granting bail..Sahu was arrested on October 4, 2021 after he confessed to have consumed ganja while he was on the cruise from October 2 to 4. He was charged with offences under Sections 8(c) and 27 of the NDPS Act..Advocate Sana Raees Khan appearing for Sahu had sought for bail on the following grounds:Absence of recovery from Sahu, hence rigours of Section 37 do not apply;Not arrested for offence under Section 29;Absolutely nothing to connect Sahu with the recovery made from other accused..Special Public Prosecutor Advait Sethna opposed the bail raising following points:Reliance on the statement made by Sahu under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein he confessed to have consumed ganja while he was on the cruise;Apprehended on the cruise where illegal activities as per the NDPS Act were being carried out;All accused are part of a large drug network, hence their roles cannot be segregated and Sahu’s role in the conspiracy cannot be ruled out..Judge Patil observed that even if the prosecution submissions are relied upon, there must be a prima facie evidence to support those submissions..Relying upon Union of India v. Nawaz Khan, the Court observed that possession is not the sole relevant factor for deciding a bail application. Some other factors are necessary to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the rigours of Section 37 apply or not..Judge Patil deduced that the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) failed to place on record any evidence to show that Sahu was either in contact with or in any way connected with the co-accused.“Merely because applicant was present on the cruise, he cannot be said to be acted in conspiracy with co-accused,” the judge said. .Along with Sahu, co-accused Manish Rajgariya was also granted bail by the Special Judge. The prosecution's case against Rajgariya was that he was found with 2.4 grams of ganja which is a small quantity. Rajgariya's lawyer Taraq Sayed argued that the contraband was in fact found from the security officer and Rajgariya could not be accused of being in 'conscious possession' of the substance. .Observing that there is also no evidence of conspiracy against Rajgariya, the Court held that "merely because some contraband was allegedly recovered from the applicant, he can not be said to be acted in conspiracy with co-accused". The Court deduced that since only a "small quantity of 2.4 grams of Ganja was recovered from the applicant, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply". .[Read orders]