Legal professional Ayaz Khan within the Aryan Khan case: Because of our technique, we acquired Fardeen Khan off bail inside three days – Occasions of India

Attorney Ayaz Khan, who handled the Fardeen Khan and Bharti Singh cases against the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), speaks to ETimes about the Aryan Khan case. He reveals how he handled things differently with Fardeen and Bharti, and how his strategy resulted in both parties being released on bail within days. Ayaz draws parallels between Aryan Khan’s case and those he has worked on in the past, and tells us how things could have been treated differently in Aryan’s case. Excerpts:

“Fardeen was released on bail within three days”

When I was first informed of Fardeen Khan’s case, the first thing I did was to take in the facts of the entire case. After meeting and talking to Fardeen during a legal interview, I realized that prosecutors said he was trying to buy a gram of cocaine and Nasir Shaikh, the peddler, had more quantities. Fardeen had deposited 3500 rupees at an ATM to buy this one gram. The money could not be withdrawn because the card was swallowed by the machine.

This was where we had to work and Fardenen’s father, Feroz Khan, specifically told me, “We don’t want a false defense”. This is how we advanced this defense. Although the case was intermediate, Farden’s role was to try to consume even that one gram and that is a bail-off crime.

A gram is a small amount and the penalty in this case was about 6 months these days, or a fine of 10,000 rupees, or a penalty of one day to six months.

It was a minor offense and there was a new notification that amounts up to 2g are considered small amounts. Given the circumstances of the case, we believe that it is the prosecutor’s case. Fardeen took one gram of cocaine, that’s a small amount. We want to be released on bail in such cases, they cannot be kept in prison, although the prosecution has argued that Fardeen has been using drugs for a long time, but my defense has been that if he has been using drugs for a long time, he always stays another consumer.

There was a dispute and Fardeen was held by the NCB for two or three days. We asked for bail immediately and soon got it from the NDPS court.

The prosecution alleged that they wanted to investigate whether there was a conspiracy because about 9 grams of contraband had been found on the peddler Nasir. But the judge’s finding was that if the testimony stated that he was consuming fardeen, he should be tried for low levels. We released him on bail within three days.

We didn’t give the prosecutor a chance to develop the case any further. Even when they said Nasir and Fardeen were talking, my point was clear, if he is a consumer and speaks to the peddler, he only speaks to him for consumption and that helped our case.

After we got it out, they made a complaint that was very vague and said it was 9g. We went back to the court and said the case against Fardeen only cost a gram. Accordingly, the fees to be assessed in his case must be determined for one gram.

This matter went from the Sessions Court to the High Court and back to the Sessions Court and we got the order in our favor as the evidence against Fardeen indicated it was a one gram case. There were other lawyers telling Feroz Khan to deny all allegations, but I was convinced of Feroz Khan’s opinion that we will not give a false defense. We also couldn’t defend ourselves wrongly as there was an ATM Fardeen had tried to withdraw money from and footage from that ATM showed that Nasir was the peddler with him.

We took on the defense after the prosecutor’s case that Fardeen was a consumer. Fardeen has completed a de-addiction course that falls under 64A of the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act is a consumer reform act and there are reliefs under Sections 64A and 39 for consumers. So if you take a de-addiction course, the case against you will be withdrawn.

We applied to the NCB to direct us to a center where we could take the addiction control course, but we didn’t get a response from them. We waited a long time, then we registered ourselves with a government organization. We got the certificate and submitted it to the court and the case was withdrawn.

Our case only closed in 2012 because it moved from the Sessions Court to the High Court and there were no trials. Many people were in custody and Fardeen was also busy with his work. And then Feroz Khan was not doing well either. But strategically it wasn’t a problem.

“The NCB had the opportunity to investigate the case further because Aryan was detained for 6 days”

The problem in Aryan’s case is that even though the NCB originally filed a consumer complaint, it slapped Sections 27, 28 and 29. Section 28 is attempting to consume, section 29 is a conspiracy to consume, and section 27 is consumption.

But, according to the charges, punishments can only be made for consumption. In Sections 28 and 29 there is no penalty that corresponds to a consumption penalty. The NCB got a chance when they got Aryan’s custody. As soon as they got a chance they went through his WhatsApp and then other things came out. I also suspect that there were witnesses in the case.

They had the opportunity to investigate the case further because he was in custody for six days. This gave the NCB plenty of time, and now it is said in court that Aryan spoke to some peddlers overseas. It also depends on what statement Aryan gave them or what statement the NCB knocked out of him. This statement will not be allowed in court, but the NCB will be given the right to investigate. The only point we can make between Aryan and Fardden’s cases is that we were very quick to take bail. On the first day Fardeen was brought before the court, I filed my bail request, which Aryan did not. We applied for bail and the matter was brought up for a hearing the next day. The NCB responded, we argued, and we were out.

“I didn’t want Bharti Singh and Harsh Limbachiyaa to come under the care of the NCB”

In the case of Bharti Singh and her husband Harsh Limbachiyaa, the NCB found 80 grams of contraband in their office and home. It was much more than what Aryan’s friend Arbaaz Merchant had with him. What I also did in their case was that I did not allow them to go into the custody of the NCB. You were brought before the court on Sunday, and I immediately applied for detention, even though the NCB wanted to take over the custody. Not for Bharti, but they insisted on Harsh’s custody. They could have investigated a lot through Harsh, so I made sure I detained them the first day so they could be out of custody at the NCB. Getting her to JC meant we could be bailed the next day, now the case is pending. I didn’t want either of them in the custody of the NCB because you don’t know what angles the investigation will open up. Sometimes you can fabricate evidence, sometimes you can add evidence, sometimes you can nullify statements. Right or wrong can only be proven after the trial.

Related Articles