Aryan Khan Case: Bombay High Court Releases Order With Bail Conditions
Aryan Khan Case: Bombay High Court Bail Order with Conditions
Background:
Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in October 2021 during a drug-related raid on a cruise ship. He was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
After being in custody for several weeks, he moved the Bombay High Court seeking bail.
Bombay High Court Bail Order — Key Points:
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Aryan Khan but with conditions attached to ensure:
Proper investigation without interference
Prevention of tampering with evidence
Assuring presence during trial
The bail conditions were designed to balance Aryan’s personal liberty with the State’s interest in a fair investigation.
Bail Conditions Imposed:
Some key conditions included:
No contact with co-accused or witnesses in the case to prevent witness tampering.
Surrendering of passport to prevent flight risk.
Regular attendance before the investigating officer.
Non-involvement in any drug-related activities during the bail period.
Cooperation with the investigation in the case.
Legal Principles Governing Bail in NDPS Cases:
The NDPS Act is stringent, and bail under it is generally difficult to obtain because:
The law contemplates serious offences with heavy social impact.
The Court must ensure the accused is not a threat to society or likely to tamper with evidence.
The Act imposes stringent conditions for bail in Section 37, 36A, and 50.
However, courts have also balanced this with the fundamental right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Relevant Supreme Court Case Laws on Bail:
1. Sushil Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 45
Held that automatic bail cannot be granted in NDPS cases; stringent conditions must be met.
Bail should not be routine and requires careful scrutiny.
2. Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 130
Fundamental rule that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, except where serious offences demand otherwise.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447
Bail is discretionary, and court must weigh facts, nature of offence, likelihood of tampering, and chance of absconding.
4. Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2019) 2 SCC 22
While NDPS is stringent, bail can be granted if the court is convinced the accused is not a flight risk or tampering risk.
5. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565
Bail is a rule, custody an exception. Courts must balance liberty against public interest.
Application in Aryan Khan Case:
The High Court balanced the seriousness of drug charges with Aryan Khan’s personal liberty.
The court noted that prolonged custody without bail was not justified when the investigation was ongoing.
Imposing bail conditions ensured:
Aryan Khan would not interfere with the investigation.
The State’s interest was protected.
Aryan’s liberty was restored in line with constitutional rights.
Significance:
The case highlighted that even in serious offences under the NDPS Act, bail cannot be denied arbitrarily.
Courts should impose reasonable and practical conditions to balance justice and liberty.
It reaffirmed the principle that criminal law must not become a tool for unnecessary harassment.
Summary:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Aryan Khan (Bombay High Court Bail) |
| Law Involved | NDPS Act |
| Bail Granted? | Yes, with conditions |
| Key Bail Conditions | No contact with co-accused, surrender passport, cooperate with investigation |
| Legal Principles Referenced | Article 21, Bail as rule not exception, NDPS Bail jurisprudence |
| Supreme Court Cases Cited | Sushil Sharma, Moti Ram, Balchand, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Rakesh Kumar Paul |
RELATED Blog
0 comments