Actor Armaan Kohli has moved Bombay High Court seeking bail in a narcotic drugs case after the Sessions Court had rejected his bail application..Kohli stated that he was in custody with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai for a substantial period of time and despite sufficient interrogation by the agency, NCB was still unable to connect him with any alleged offence.Therefore, he was remanded to judicial custody, the plea stated..After his bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground of jurisdiction and maintainability, he moved the Sessions Court for bail.The Special Court of Sessions rejected his bail application on October 14, while the reasoned order came out after a week on October 21, 2021. .Kohli's rejection verdict came on the same date another Special Judge reserved its verdict in the bail application filed by Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan.Khan is a prime accused in the cruise ship drug case of Mumbai. The alleged offences against both accused appear to be identical and the factual matrix and allegations against both accused are seem similar. .Incidentally when Khan's bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Magistrate had relied upon Kohli's order. Sessions court's rejection order of Kohli's bail plea was also cited when arguing Khan's bail application. .Kohli’s lawyers, Chate and associates, has moved the bail application for urgent hearing before Justice Nitin Sambre and the same is likely to be heard on October 26, 2021, the same date when bail application by Aryan Khan is slated for hearing. .Kohli has sought for bail on the following grounds:That he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in alleged offence;That there is neither prima facie case nor admissible evidence against him; in fact the only evidence against him was his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act brought on record by prosecution;That except statement and panchnama, there is no material on record to prima facie justify invoking Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act against Kohli;That mere collection of bank statement and Whatsapp chats are not sufficient to invoke the stringent provisions of NDPS Act;Even the chats showed that there is no such communication from Kohli showing any kind of financing or trafficking under NDPS Act;That contraband allegedly recovered from him is of a small quantity of 1.2 grams and the same does not come in the category of cognizable and non-bailable under NDPS Act and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not apply; Personal liberty is priceless treasure and its sanctity is the fulcrum of any civilised society;If there is no substantial risk of the accused fleeing the course of justice, there is no reason why he should be imprisoned during the period pending case;The basic rule is to release him on bail unless there are circumstances suggesting the possibility of his fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice; Any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refused bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct.
Actor Armaan Kohli has moved Bombay High Court seeking bail in a narcotic drugs case after the Sessions Court had rejected his bail application..Kohli stated that he was in custody with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai for a substantial period of time and despite sufficient interrogation by the agency, NCB was still unable to connect him with any alleged offence.Therefore, he was remanded to judicial custody, the plea stated..After his bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground of jurisdiction and maintainability, he moved the Sessions Court for bail.The Special Court of Sessions rejected his bail application on October 14, while the reasoned order came out after a week on October 21, 2021. .Kohli's rejection verdict came on the same date another Special Judge reserved its verdict in the bail application filed by Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan.Khan is a prime accused in the cruise ship drug case of Mumbai. The alleged offences against both accused appear to be identical and the factual matrix and allegations against both accused are seem similar. .Incidentally when Khan's bail application was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the Magistrate had relied upon Kohli's order. Sessions court's rejection order of Kohli's bail plea was also cited when arguing Khan's bail application. .Kohli’s lawyers, Chate and associates, has moved the bail application for urgent hearing before Justice Nitin Sambre and the same is likely to be heard on October 26, 2021, the same date when bail application by Aryan Khan is slated for hearing. .Kohli has sought for bail on the following grounds:That he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in alleged offence;That there is neither prima facie case nor admissible evidence against him; in fact the only evidence against him was his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act brought on record by prosecution;That except statement and panchnama, there is no material on record to prima facie justify invoking Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act against Kohli;That mere collection of bank statement and Whatsapp chats are not sufficient to invoke the stringent provisions of NDPS Act;Even the chats showed that there is no such communication from Kohli showing any kind of financing or trafficking under NDPS Act;That contraband allegedly recovered from him is of a small quantity of 1.2 grams and the same does not come in the category of cognizable and non-bailable under NDPS Act and therefore rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not apply; Personal liberty is priceless treasure and its sanctity is the fulcrum of any civilised society;If there is no substantial risk of the accused fleeing the course of justice, there is no reason why he should be imprisoned during the period pending case;The basic rule is to release him on bail unless there are circumstances suggesting the possibility of his fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice; Any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refused bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct.
