No Bail For Aryan Khan Yet, Lawyer Says Arrest Unconstitutional

Aryan Khan's jail stay stretches by another night as arguments on his bail request in the Bombay High Court spill over to Day 3 today. His lawyer Mukul Rohatgi said in court on Wednesday that his arrest was a direct infringement of his constitutional guarantees and that he was never given any reason for his custody.

Aryan Khan, the 23-year-old son of superstar Shah Rukh Khan, has been in prison in Mumbai for 20 days. He was arrested along with his friend Arbaaz Merchant and others after the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) raided a cruise ship party on October 2.

For the NCB, Aryan is "Accused Number 1" and his friend, No. 2.

His defence team emphasised on Wednesday that nothing was found on him and that the grounds for both his arrest and for denial of bail were flimsy.

"No person who is arrested can be held without being informed of the grounds of arrest and such a person shall have the right to consult a lawyer of his choice," said Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General of India.

He cited Article 22 of the Constitution on protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

The anti-drugs agency has based its case against Aryan Khan on WhatsApp chats found on his phone, claiming that they provide enough evidence of his involvement in "illicit drug deals" and his links with an international cartel.

"If there is a constitutional infirmity then that cannot be cured by remand," Mr Rohatgi said.

"They had the phone. They will tell you they have WhatsApp chats. I am handicapped. I do not know what they have. They chose to mislead the court. I (Aryan Khan) had nothing with me."

Mr Rohatgi also pointed out that "constitutional issues would arise because none of the others, from whom drugs had been found, had even been arrested" when Aryan Khan was held.

Aryan Khan's friend Arbaaz Merchant told the court that there was no evidence of any conspiracy or agreement.

"It is necessary to show a meeting of minds. Three unconnected people coming for the same purpose is not a conspiracy. Three people individually deciding to consume is not a conspiracy," said Arbaaz's lawyer Amit Desai.

"The intention to commit a crime, joining hands with another person also with the intention to commit a crime and having an agreement to do so together is what a conspiracy is," Mr Desai argued.