Inordinately prolonging his custody is uncalled for

A special NDPS court had on Wednesday, October 20,  denied bail to Aryan, noting that his WhatsApp chats prima facie revealed that he was ‘dealing in illicit drug activities on a regular basis’ and therefore ‘it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if released on bail’.

Arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in a drugs case on October 3, movie star Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan will have to wait till early next week for the hearing of his bail application in the Bombay High Court. A special NDPS court had on Wednesday denied bail to Aryan, noting that his WhatsApp chats prima facie revealed that he was ‘dealing in illicit drug activities on a regular basis’ and therefore ‘it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if released on bail’. Section 37 of the NDPS Act has the provision for bail, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence in question and that he is not likely to commit any crime while on bail. The all-important term, ‘reasonable grounds’, seems to have been interpreted in a disproportionately harsh manner in Aryan’s case. As of now, the NCB appears to be banking solely on the WhatsApp chats as evidence against him.

It had taken film actor Rhea Chakraborty a month to get bail in a drugs case allegedly linked to Sushant Singh Rajput’s death last year. The High Court had imposed stringent conditions while ordering her release: she was told to surrender her passport to the investigating officer; she could leave the jurisdiction of the special NDPS court in Mumbai only after submitting her itinerary; and she had to report to the NCB office on the first Monday of every month for six months. It’s reasonable to argue that Aryan can be set free with similar riders. If he thumbs his nose at the rule book, his bail can obviously be cancelled.

Bail, not jail — this basic rule of legal proceedings was set forth in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in State of Rajasthan vs Balchand (1977). The order had also cited exceptions to the rule: cases ‘where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences…’ Aryan’s case does not fit the bill for denial of bail.

(Tribune, India)