In the ongoing Aryan Khan case, Bombay High Court issued its bail order for Aryan where it stated that “no positive evidence” was found against Khan for conspiracy.

On Saturday, the Bombay High Court issued its 14-page bail order which stated that prima facie there was no evidence against primary accused Aryan Khan and co-accused Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha for conspiracy under the NDPS Act.

The court in its order further added that just because the primary and co-accused were on the cruise, Section 29 against them cannot be invoked. The Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act lays down the ‘punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy’.


What happens when the 23-year-old son of the biggest star of a country is arrested by the authorities under drugs related charges. Especially in a country which is already waging a war against drugs. The answer to that unravelled in the span of almost two months.

On October 3, Aryan Khan, son of popular actor Shahrukh Khan, was arrested by anti-drugs agency NCB from a Goa-bound cruise on Mumbai waters. The NCB stated that there was a ‘rave-party’ taking place on the cruise.

Khan, who was not in possession of drugs, was charged under criminal conspiracy. After almost two months, and with the help of a former Attorney General of India, Khan was finally granted a bail earlier this month.

Also Read: NCB Officer Sameer Wankhede Submits Birth Certificate After Nawab Malik’s ‘Dawood’ Accusation

The Facts of the Matter

In the case of Union of India VS Aryan Khan, the Bombay High Court issued its 14-page speaking order. In the order, the High Court didn’t find any positive evidence that would prove that Aryan Khan was involved in conspiracy.

Why Was the Bail Order Issued So Late?

It should be noted that while Aryan was granted bail on October 28, the court had only delivered a short order. Until Saturday November 20, the entire order which lays out the reasons as to why Aryan was given bail, had not been issued.

The bail order spoken by Justice Nitin Sambre added that there was no evidence that proves that Aryan Khan, Arbaaz Merchant and Munmun Dhamecha were involved in conspiracy. Thus, they can’t be charged under conspiracy under the NDPS Act.

Also Read: IFS Officer Shares Viral Video of Cheetah Saving Little Frog from Snake

How Court Found Out About No Conspiracy?

Regarding the charges of being involved in conspiracy, the Court’s order read – “For inferring the act of hatching conspiracy on the part of the Applicants and other co-accused, there has to be positive evidence about an agreement to do an unlawful act or to do lawful act by unlawful means and such agreement must precede with meeting of minds.”

“There is hardly any positive evidence on record to convince this Court that all the accused persons with common intention agreed to commit unlawful act,” the order read.

WhatsApp Chats Don’t Offer Anything Objectionable

Regarding the WhatsApp chats that were claimed to have Aryan Khan soliciting drugs, the courts observed that the chats did not reveal anything objectionable.

“After having gone through the Whats-App chats extracted from Applicant/Accused no. 1’s (Khan) phone, nothing objectionable could be noticed to suggest that Applicant nos. 1 & 2 (Merchant) or all three applicants alongwith other Accused persons in agreement have meeting of minds and have hatched conspiracy committing the offence in question,” the order read, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

Also Read: Tim Paine Quits as Australian Team Test Captain After Sending Explicit Texts to Female Co-Worker

No Medical Tests Were Done After the Arrest

The order also stated that Aryan Khan has suffered incarceration for over 25 days, and were not even subjected to medical examination if they at that point had consumed drugs.

“Merely Because Aryan Was Travelling on Cruise…”

This Court is required to be sensitive to the fact that there has to be presence of basic material in the form of evidence so as to substantiate the case of conspiracy against the Applicants. Merely because of Applicants were travelling on the cruise, that by itself cannot be termed as satisfying foundation for invoking provisions of Section 29 against the Applicants.