Aryan Khan case: Top arguments by former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that secured bail for SRK's son

In a major relief, the Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to Aryan Khan, Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha who were nabbed in the cruise ship rave party raided by the Narcotics Control Bureau. While granting conditional bail to the trio, Justice N.W. Sambre passed the operative order and the detailed order is expected today (October 29). Accordingly, the trio of Khan, Merchant and Dhamecha will not step out of the jails till the court's orders are received, said a defence lawyer.

The bail verdict came after over 9 hours of hearing spread over three afternoons at the packed hall of the high court given the unprecedented public interest in the goings-on.

"The high court has granted bail to Aryan, Arbaaz and Munmun," said a victorious Mukul Rohatgi, the former Attorney General of India, who represented the son of Bollywood megastar Shah Rukh Khan in the critical final three days of arguments.

The advocate-on-record for Aryan, Satish Maneshinde, glanced upwards and briefly commented: "God is great".

Rohatgi declined further comments till the detailed bail order is received, which will be sent to the Arthur Road Central Jail to process before they actually step out of their barred enclosures.

But do you know what arguments did Mukul Rohatgi make to secure bail for Aryan Khan? Well, here are a few listed below. 

- Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Aryan Khan in the Bombay High Court, argued, "Aryan was not a customer. He was a special guest. He was invited by a man named Pradeep Gaba who is an event manager. Aryan and Arbaaz [Merchant] were invited. They were there without tickets. They reached around 4.30 pm at the cruise terminal." "It appears that NCB had prior information about people carrying drugs so they were present in some strength."

- "After Aryan and Arbaaz, many others were arrested. Nothing was recovered from Aryan and no medical examination was done to show that he had consumed drugs. Arbaaz had some 6 grams in his shoes and Arbaaz denies it and says it was planted but I am not concerned with that except that he was Aryan's friend." 

- NCB officials are not police: As far as NDPS is concerned, we had raised this issue in SC. We raised this issue in several petitions of special acts. As these are officers & not police. So if you record a statement as police.

- Statement was retracted: There is nothing against my client. He was arrested on October 3. There was a statement recorded under Section 67 which was retracted the next date.

- Aryan Khan 'wrongly' arrested: The statements made to NDPS officers are inadmissible. That is what it says. Since there is no RECOVERY, I submit I am WRONGLY arrested.

- Small quantity not enough for custody: So this small amount is not enough to keep me in custody. Many others have been found with intermediary and commercial quantity. There is no Section 27A against me!

- "They [NCB] are saying that conscious possession as it was in Arbaaz's shoes. This is too farfetched. Conscious possession is what is under my control and known to me." Consequently, Rohatgi stated that 'conscious possession' cannot be held against his client since nothing was recovered from him. "I knew only Arbaaz, I did not know anyone else. It is true it is difficult to prove that there is common meeting of mind. But facts cannot be ignored. There has to be meeting of minds. How can there be conscious possession for 6 gms." "Their argument is that because it is not coincidence it is a conspiracy. Conspiracy can’t have anything to do with conjecture." 

- Mukul Rohatgi argued that the small quantity of drugs recovered from Arbaaz Merchantt is not enough to keep Aryan Khan in jail while adding Section 29 of the NDPS Act is a "general amorphous charge" in Aryan's case.

- No meeting of minds: "If I put against myself, assuming for conspiracy that 5-10 people plan and say that they will go to a ship to smoke, there is a meeting of minds. But that programme is for consumption. Here, you have caught me [Aryan Khan] before that could be done. What happens if the programme was aborted?" argued Mukul Rohatgi.

- "I don't want to prejudice the case of Arbaaz. According to him, it was planted. He will argue his case but there is nothing to say that there is any drug found on him [Aryan]," Rohatgi said in court.

- Charge of Conspiracy: Now S. 27A is trafficking, like a peddler. And then Section 29, because Merchant was found with substance.
I do not know anybody but Merchant. So the charge of conspiracy.

- Sections Under 37 Do Not Apply: It is my case that Section 37 cannot kick in because sections under 37 do not apply. But the sessions court has held 37 and conspiracy.

- NO seizure of mobile phone, old WhatsApp chats: Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that was no panchnama for seizure of mobile phones and it was only in remand. When the bench asked what was the basis of WhatsApp chats if the phone was not seized, Rohatgi said, "Whether the chats are admissible or not, that is for trial. But there is no connection with WhatsApp chats that were had in a foreign land. We can't be concerned about it today."

- Did not finance drug trafficking: "I am not in any case concerned with S. 27A. There is no evidence. I have not financed anyone trafficking. Kindly see 29 for abetting. The punishment is same as the offence."