Mere presence on cruise ship doesn’t prove conspiracy theory, says court | India News – Rashtra News : Rashtra News
#Mere #presence #cruise #ship #doesnt #prove #conspiracy #theory #court #India #News #Times #India
MUMBAI: Granting bail to two of the accused in the cruise liner drug bust case – Manish Rajgaria and Avin Sahu – a special court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances cases said that merely because Sahu was present, he cannot be said to have acted in conspiracy with the other accused.
The same court had last week rejected bail pleas of Aryan Khan and two others.
Sahu (30), an Odisha-based jewellery businessman, was accused of consuming ganja twice on board the cruise liner. His lawyer, Sana Raees Khan, had argued that the only material against him is his alleged confessional statement under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act which is not admissible even at the stage of trial in the light of Supreme Court judgments. The prosecution had argued that it could be used at the investigation stage. However, the court said that even if the prosecution’s submissions are accepted, there must be some prima facie evidence supporting the case.
In Rajgaria’s order, the court observed that merely because some contraband was allegedly recovered from him, he cannot be said to have acted in a conspiracy with his co-accused. The prosecution had accused Rajgaria (30) of possessing 2.4gm of ganja. However, the court said that there is prima facie no cogent evidence of the recovery from him. “Moreover…panchnama states that contraband was handed over to the NCB officers by security officer.” The court said it is pertinent to note that he was not arrested on the first day of NCB’s raid on the cruise on October 2 but when the ship returned to the city two days later. In his statement under section 67 of NDPS Act, “he admitted that he was possessing contraband and he handed it over to security officer Gajanan Patil, who produced it before NCB officers. Thus, it is clear that contraband was not directly recovered from the possession of the applicant but it was recovered from security officer Gajanan Patil,” the court said.
Rajgaria’s lawyer Taraq Sayed had argued that while the NCB had claimed that the chief security officer of the cruise had handed the ganja to the investigating agency, the panchnama did not say from where the ganja was actually recovered.
The court said that Rajgaria and Sahu had neither disclosed names of any accused or peddlers nor did they have connections with drug peddlers. It said that the prosecution had failed to point out any circumstances which would show a nexus between the duo and their co-accused to prima facie make out the ingredients of a conspiracy.
The prosecution had argued that since the bail pleas of Aryan, Arbaaz Khan and Munmun Dhamecha were rejected by the court on grounds that there was an element of a conspiracy and since all the accused are connected by the same thread, the observations apply to Rajgaria and Sahu too. Refuting this, the court said merely because bail pleas of the others were rejected, the same analogy cannot be applied in the duo’s cases. “Thus, no prima facie case of conspiracy and abetment is made out against the applicant as alleged by the prosecution,” the court said in both orders.
The prosecution had cited the ruling in the case of Showik Chakraborty, an accused in the drug case linked to Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, where it was held that since the accused are part of the conspiracy, each of them is liable for the entire quantity of drugs seized. The court, however, in both orders, said, “In the present case, there is no prima facie material to indicate that the present applicant is part of a larger network. Hence, this can be distinguished from the case of other accused in whose respect there is evidence about conspiracy.”
It held that Sahu was arrested under sections of the NDPS Act where the maximum sentence was one year in jail and Rajgaria was accused of possessing a small quantity of ganja. The court said, hence the bar under section 37 of the Act would not apply. Under Section 37, no person accused under 27A (for illicit trafficking and harbouring of offenders) or for offences involving commercial quantity can be given bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe he’s not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while out on bail.
It was observed that both were permanent residents of Odisha, had no criminal antecedents and had given an undertaking they would not tamper with evidence. The court said, hence, they were “not likely to abscond” or flee from justice.
The same court had last week rejected bail pleas of Aryan Khan and two others.
Sahu (30), an Odisha-based jewellery businessman, was accused of consuming ganja twice on board the cruise liner. His lawyer, Sana Raees Khan, had argued that the only material against him is his alleged confessional statement under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act which is not admissible even at the stage of trial in the light of Supreme Court judgments. The prosecution had argued that it could be used at the investigation stage. However, the court said that even if the prosecution’s submissions are accepted, there must be some prima facie evidence supporting the case.
In Rajgaria’s order, the court observed that merely because some contraband was allegedly recovered from him, he cannot be said to have acted in a conspiracy with his co-accused. The prosecution had accused Rajgaria (30) of possessing 2.4gm of ganja. However, the court said that there is prima facie no cogent evidence of the recovery from him. “Moreover…panchnama states that contraband was handed over to the NCB officers by security officer.” The court said it is pertinent to note that he was not arrested on the first day of NCB’s raid on the cruise on October 2 but when the ship returned to the city two days later. In his statement under section 67 of NDPS Act, “he admitted that he was possessing contraband and he handed it over to security officer Gajanan Patil, who produced it before NCB officers. Thus, it is clear that contraband was not directly recovered from the possession of the applicant but it was recovered from security officer Gajanan Patil,” the court said.
Rajgaria’s lawyer Taraq Sayed had argued that while the NCB had claimed that the chief security officer of the cruise had handed the ganja to the investigating agency, the panchnama did not say from where the ganja was actually recovered.
The court said that Rajgaria and Sahu had neither disclosed names of any accused or peddlers nor did they have connections with drug peddlers. It said that the prosecution had failed to point out any circumstances which would show a nexus between the duo and their co-accused to prima facie make out the ingredients of a conspiracy.
The prosecution had argued that since the bail pleas of Aryan, Arbaaz Khan and Munmun Dhamecha were rejected by the court on grounds that there was an element of a conspiracy and since all the accused are connected by the same thread, the observations apply to Rajgaria and Sahu too. Refuting this, the court said merely because bail pleas of the others were rejected, the same analogy cannot be applied in the duo’s cases. “Thus, no prima facie case of conspiracy and abetment is made out against the applicant as alleged by the prosecution,” the court said in both orders.
The prosecution had cited the ruling in the case of Showik Chakraborty, an accused in the drug case linked to Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, where it was held that since the accused are part of the conspiracy, each of them is liable for the entire quantity of drugs seized. The court, however, in both orders, said, “In the present case, there is no prima facie material to indicate that the present applicant is part of a larger network. Hence, this can be distinguished from the case of other accused in whose respect there is evidence about conspiracy.”
It held that Sahu was arrested under sections of the NDPS Act where the maximum sentence was one year in jail and Rajgaria was accused of possessing a small quantity of ganja. The court said, hence the bar under section 37 of the Act would not apply. Under Section 37, no person accused under 27A (for illicit trafficking and harbouring of offenders) or for offences involving commercial quantity can be given bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe he’s not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while out on bail.
It was observed that both were permanent residents of Odisha, had no criminal antecedents and had given an undertaking they would not tamper with evidence. The court said, hence, they were “not likely to abscond” or flee from justice.
( News Source :Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Rashtra News staff and is published from a timesofindia.indiatimes.com feed.)
