Fans
of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan hold posters with 'Release Aryan
Khan' written on them outside the Bombay high court in Mumbai, October
26, 2021. Photo: PTI/Shashank Parade
Mumbai: On October 26, as the
Bombay high court began to hear the arguments in the bail application
moved by Aryan Khan, actor Shahrukh Khan’s son, India Today TV ran an “exclusive” story about the “incriminating WhatsApp chat” between Khan and his friend and budding actress Ananya Pandey.
The conversation, the channel claimed, discussed procurement of
drugs. This chat, as it appeared, was categorically leaked to a section
of the media. Within minutes, the news broke on a few more TV channels.
The chat, the defence lawyers have argued during the bail proceedings,
was accessed and made public even before being placed on record. These
chats, they claimed, were read out of context and intentionally leaked
to colour public opinion.
There is a clear pattern that has emerged in the way the Narcotics
Control Bureau (NCB) has functioned in the recent past, especially when
it deals with celebrities and high-profile cases. In politically
motivated cases, involving high-profile persons, the action seems to
play not in a courtroom but outside it.
In the alleged drug party on a Goa-bound cruise involving Khan and
others, right from day one, there are several allegations and questions
raised about the way in which the case was handled. Khan was arrested on
October 3. He was allegedly one of the many persons who had consumed
drugs at the party. For an allegation of this nature, the NCB should
have first conducted a medical examination on him and other arrested
persons. Inexplicably, the NCB decided to not get the 23-year-old’s
urine and blood samples tested – a common practice in any drug case.
Since the day of the
arrest, Khan’s lawyers have been harping over the absence of one of the
most crucial aspects in the case. The NCB, which while arresting Khan
and two others – Arbaaz Merchant and Munmum Dhamecha – had applied
sections of only consumption and later shifted their story to conspiracy
and claimed a larger “international drug link” was involved. The claim,
even 24 days since the raid, has not been substantiated.
The arrest memo drafted soon after Khan and other accused persons
were taken into custody merely mentions “personal consumption”. But to
substantiate this allegation too, the NCB has not attributed any
quantity of drug to Khan or Merchant.
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act
criminalises consumption and the maximum punishment under the Act is one
year. Senior counsel Amit Desai, appearing for Khan, during the bail
argument has repeatedly questioned the NCB’s intention to go for custody
when as per the procedure laid down under section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),
the accused persons should have been issued notice to appear before the
investigating team instead of seeking their physical custody. Khan and
others have been in custody for 24 days now. This crucial aspect was
recently emphasised on by the Andhra Pradesh high court in an NDPS case.
Two persons – Avin Sahu and Manish Rajgarhia – who too were arrested along with Khan were granted bail by the special NDPS court on October 26.
They were ‘guests’ on the cruise and are the first of the 20 people who
have been arrested to be granted bail in the case so far. Sahu is
accused of consumption and Ragarhia, interestingly, was shown in
possession of 2.4 grams of marijuana. Special judge V.V. Patil, who had
earlier denied bail to Khan, Merchant and Dhamecha, passed the order
granting bail to Sahu and Rajgarhia.
The bail application of Khan, Dhamecha and Merchant is scheduled for a
third consecutive day of hearing on October 28 before the Bombay high
court.
The defence has called the investigation a media trial and that Khan
is made a scapegoat only because he is the son of a famous man. The NCB
zonal head, Sameer Wankhede, who is heading the investigation, in one of
his recent media interviews had claimed that his office has burst
several narcotics rackets in recent years.
“The media does not highlight the news if we catch a normal person,
but when there is a case involving a celebrity, the news is
everywhere,” Wankhede had said.
But it is also a fact that in those cases, the NCB has not leaked
private chats to the media. Actress Rhea Chakraborty’s chats were also
leaked last year.
Following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput by suicide, the
manner in which his partner, Chakraborty, was hounded by media and the
Central agencies, including the NCB, is seen to be playing out in Khan’s
case too. But this time, unlike the past year, the Mahavikas Aghadi
government in the state is more prepared and is poking holes in the
procedure and is seen to be countering the NCB’s claims in a more
combative manner.
NCB zonal director Sameer Wankhede. Photo: PTI
At the forefront is senior Nationalist Congress Party leader Nawab
Malik, who has taken it upon himself to “expose” Wankhede and his ways.
Malik’s son-in- law was booked in another NDPS case a few months ago,
only to be later given a clean chit. He might have an axe to grind here
but the evidence that he has brought forth so far questions the veracity
of the NCB’s case.
For instance, let us look at the presence of the two panch (spot) witnesses in the case. These witnesses – one with a clear BJP link and another with a past crime record
– were present on the cruise at the time of the raid. Within days of
arrest, Malik made an explosive revelation by posting pictures of K.P.
Gosavi, a self-styled private detective in Malaysia, with Khan. Gosavi,
taken along by the NCB as a “respected person” – a prerequisite to
qualify as a panch witness – has cases of forgery against him. Another
person, Manish Bhanushali, is a well-known BJP worker. Bhanushali was
seen posing with Merchant.
Since then, Malik has continued to make sensational claims – from an
alleged conspiracy to malign the state government to falsely implicating
Khan and others in a “fake case” and illegal tapping. During each of
his press appearances, Malik has presented “evidence” to back his claims
up. The most recent instance was when he alleged that Wankhede produced
a “fake caste certificate” to become an Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
officer. In the process, Wankhede’s religious identity has also been
raked up. Wankhede has claimed that he has been unfairly targeted and
his family has been dragged into murky politics.
Malik’s
attacks have led one of the witnesses, Prabhakar Sail, to come ahead
and make allegations of corruption and extortion against Wankhede. Sail,
who claims to be Gosavi’s bodyguard, is one of the witnesses in the
case. Sail, in an affidavit, has claimed that he overheard Gosavi speak
to one Sam D’Souza about a Rs “18- crore deal”. Of this, Sail has claimed that Rs 8 crore was Wankhede’s share.
Sail claims that he was made to sign blank papers by Wankhede. After
Sail, Shekhar Kamble, a witness in another case involving a Nigerian
national has also claimed that he was made to sign 10-12 blank papers by Wankhede and his team.
SOURCE ; THE WIRE
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments