In a relief for former Mumbai Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede, a Special Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Zaid Rana, an accused in a case registered under the Narcotics Control and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, who had made allegations of fabrication of evidence against him.
In his bail application filed before the special court set up under the NDPS Act, Rana had claimed that Wankhede had registered this case based on “fabricated” evidence against him on the ground that there was animosity between Rana’s parents and Wankhede’s tenant, who were neighbours.
Wankhede — who was at the centre of a fierce controversy over the arrest of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan’s son and accused in the mid-sea drug bust case Aryan Khan on October 2 last year — returned to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) after his tenure with the NCB ended late last month.
In his order rejecting Rana’s bail application, Special Judge AA Joglekar noted: “...while deciding an application for bail it is settled that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists or not. It is not necessary to make a roving enquiry or examination the merits of a prosecution case. The prima-facie material collected during the course of investigation specified herein above by the prosecution clearly demonstrates that the telephonic conversations and whatsApp chats between the applicant/accused and the co-accused”.
“Apart from the same as stated hereinbefore as the contraband is recovered in commercial quantity the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are well attracted and this ipso-facto disentitles the applicant/accused from any such relief of enlargement on bail. Thus, considering this, I am of the opinion that the applicant/accused has failed to make out a prima-facie case for the grant of bail,” the Special Judge ruled. Earlier, Rana’s lawyer Ashok Saraogi had sought to make a case for the court granting bail to his client by saying among other things: that at the time of alleged house search, Rana was not present and he was later on called by his father, that the applicant is a youngster and deserves one more opportunity and that the charge-sheet and commercial analysis report were filed and nothing incriminating could be found against Rana, nor did it indicate any connection with co-accused.
Saraogi also told the court that the panch-witnesses in the present case were the same as those in Aryan Khan’s drug case, but following the controversy, the witnesses had been changed with a false report.
On his part, Special Public Prosecutor Advait Sethna opposed Rana’s bail plea on the following grounds that that the NCB sleuths had recovered the contraband in commercial quantity and there was prima facie involvement of Rana in the recovered contraband
Sethna also told the court that Rana’s submissions before the court were a “ploy to completely mislead and prejudice the Court” that the allegations against Wankhede came belatedly, after over a period of seven months from the date of the alleged planting of the contraband.
After hearing both the sides, the Special Judge rejected Rana’s bail application on the ground that the applicant (Rana) had failed to make out a prima facie case for a grant of bail.