Bollywood actor Armaan Kohli was arrested in the last week of August in a drugs case. NCB had recovered some quantity of cocaine from the actor’s house and he has been in jail since then. After the special NDPS court rejected his bail, Bombay High Court has also denied bail to the actor.
As per the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), 1.2 grams of MD was recovered from Kohli’s house, while bigger quantities of drugs were recovered from the co-accused in the case. The court held that after examining the material obtained during the probe, ‘prima-facie’ it seemed that Kohli was ‘well-connected with the co-accused pertaining to the illicit trafficking of drugs.’
Special prosecutor Advait Sethna had submitted chats/messages between Kohli and the co-accused along with their bank statements before the court. The judge noted that bank transactions corroborated alleged transactions (revealed from the chats). Kohli failed to explain the purpose of contraband recovered from his house and the financial transactions, the NDPS court had said.
“Materials in the conversations and video files also perpetuate for the Applicant’s indulgence in Illegal Trafficking in Prima Facie, and thus, the Prosecution appears to have asserted Section 27A against the Applicant/Accused”. It also stated that Conspiracy Sections had been applied and thus the Case was ineligible for Bail.
Kohli’s Plea, filed in the High Court on October 22 via Advocate Vinod S Chate, rejected the NCB’s Allegations and questioned the Special Court’s assertions. The Plea stated that there was no Prima Facie and admissible proof against Kohli, attempting to claim that he is innocent and has been falsely accused of being involved.
The plea stated, “There is no banking transaction between the Applicant and the Alleged peddler, and the Respondent incorrectly cited financing and harboring provisions based solely on general Allegations.” “The Applicant is a well-known figure in the film industry, and he is not engaged in any Accused financing or Illegal Trafficking action, and there is no compelling reason to invoke Section 27A of the NDPS Act.”