Bombay High Court rejects actor Armaan Kohli’s bail plea in drugs case
The plea filed by Kohli on October 22 denied the NCB's allegations and challenged the observations of a special court, which had earlier denied him bail.
3 min read
File photo of actor Armaan Kohli outside Killa Court. (Express photo by Ganesh Shirsekar)The Bombay High Court on Monday refused bail to actor Armaan Kohli who had approached it after a special court rejected the same while stating that there is prima facie evidence of illicit trafficking and purchase of drugs against him.
The single-judge bench of justice Nitin W Sambre, however, allowed the bail applications of co-accused Kareem Dhanani and Imran Ansari. The reasoned order will be made available in due course.
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had claimed that in July, it seized 25 gm of mephedrone from a man, and in a follow-up action, seized 1.2 gm of cocaine from Kohli’s residence. Kohli and five others, including alleged peddlers, were arrested. The NCB had also seized Kohli’s phone and claimed to have found incriminating evidence in the form of photographs and chats concerning an international drug cartel.
The special court had said that Kohli failed to explain why he had the contraband at his home. As photos and videos have been found in his chats with other co-accused and since he had responded to them, it cannot be said he did not have any knowledge (about drugs trafficking), the court had said.
“Contents in the chats and videos also propagate for the indulgence of the applicant in illicit trafficking in prima facie and therefore, the prosecution seems to have invoked Section 27A against the applicant/accused,” the court said. It also said sections of conspiracy have been applied and it was not a fit case to grant bail.
The plea filed by Kohli in the high court on October 22, through advocate Vinod S Chate, denied the NCB’s allegations and challenged the observations of the special court. Claiming that Kohli is innocent and has been falsely implicated, the plea said that there was no prima facie and admissible evidence against him.
“There is no banking transaction of the applicant with the alleged peddler and merely on the basis of general allegations, the respondent wrongly invoked provisions in respect of financing and harbouring. The applicant is a reputed person in the film industry and he is not involved in any alleged activity in respect of financing and illegal traffic and there is no cogent reason to invoke Section 27A of the NDPS Act,” the plea said.
You May Like
Photos
