Originally posted by: TheMinion
I spoke with my mum on phone and asked her what’s on TV. She said - Mishra ji ka beta, Khan sahab ka beta and IPL.
So the other case is also getting equal coverage? Anybody in India can confirm?
Hopefuy someone can confirm.. but tbh knowing how crazy people are about bollywood it's likely getting more coverage.
1 If it was a rave party then how come they arrest Aryan and Arbaaz from the dock and ship was allowed to sail after it and party was allowed to continue? Rave party means everyone or most came their for consumption, 1300 people on the ship, how come only 11 arrested and 3 were allowed to leave within hours, one of those 3 being Pratik Gaba, who extended the invitation to Aryan Khan.
2 NCB lawyer said How can all of these 8 people be at the same place, just because Aryan didn't have drugs on him doesn't mean these 8 people being together is a coincidence
3 Arbaaz named Achit and there were one year old chats between Aryan, NCB says Achit is a supplier but they didn't even ask for Achit's further remand, in fact they didn't even attend court to seek his remand and this Achit was the reason they wanted Aryan’s further custody.
Sequence of events.
Achit arrested on Oct 6
Presented in court on Oct 7
Got NCB Custody till Oct 9
Aryan and others got Judicial Custody on Oct 8
My assumptions:
NCB wants Aryan and Achit at same place for confrontation
It can't be done with Aryan in Judicial custody and Achit with NCB custody.
Therefore NCB didn't contest for Achit extended NCB custody.
Once both in Judicial custody.. NCB will request court for a joint session.
Sequence of events.
Achit arrested on Oct 6
Presented in court on Oct 7
Got NCB Custody till Oct 9
Aryan and others got Judicial Custody on Oct 8
My assumptions:
NCB wants Aryan and Achit at same place for confrontation
It can't be done with Aryan in Judicial custody and Achit with NCB custody.
Therefore NCB didn't contest for Achit extended NCB custody.
Once both in Judicial custody.. NCB will request court for a joint session.
The name of custody is not important for confrontation, they can ask permission for Aryan’s interrogation from judiciary and decide a place where both can sit for confrontation, their state of custody doesn't matter, be it NCB remand or Judicial custody
Wasn't Achit a supplier? Is his connection limited to Aryan Khan who had nothing on him? Don't you think a supplier has more role than Aryan Khan is at best is a consumer? I would think a supplier is a lead to big drug mafias, I mean he must be ordering drugs for supplying it
The name of custody is not important for confrontation, they can ask permission for Aryan’s interrogation from judiciary and decide a place where both can sit for confrontation, their state of custody doesn't matter, be it NCB remand or Judicial custody
Wasn't Achit a supplier? Is his connection limited to Aryan Khan who had nothing on him? Don't you think a supplier has more role than Aryan Khan is at best is a consumer? I would think a supplier is a lead to big drug mafias, I mean he must be ordering drugs for supplying it
There was a reason I didn't present it as a fact but as my assumption. But it seems you confidently saying that place of custody is not important and they could request court. Can you substantiate that or any past instances where people in different custody were allowed to meet?
Are you aware of what information has been provided by Aachit in those 3 days with NCB custody?
At best we can make assumptions as to why Aachit wasn't needed for NCB custody extension.
There was a reason I didn't present it as a fact but as my assumption. But it seems you confidently saying that place of custody is not important and they could request court. Can you substantiate that or any past instances where people in different custody were allowed to meet?
Are you aware of what information has been provided by Aachit in those 3 days with NCB custody?
At best we can make assumptions as to why Aachit wasn't needed for NCB custody extension.
Um….because it is not important, the only difference it makes is that NCB can interrogate someone in their custody whenever they wish to and they need court’s permission to interrogate someone in judicial custody.
They are under different custodies with different in charge, NCB is in charge of one and judiciary is in charge of another
If they have to match the status of custody like “Judiciary-Judiciary”, it will only hamper the interrogation process, the case is with NCB only they can interrogate, NCB didn’t submit to the court that they don’t need Achit’s custody because they want to match the status of his custody with Aryan’s custody, This is absolutely ridiculous TBH
Um….because it is not important, the only difference it makes is that NCB can interrogate someone in their custody whenever they wish to and they need court’s permission to interrogate someone in judicial custody.
They are under different custodies with different in charge, NCB is in charge of one and judiciary is in charge of anotherIf they have to match the status of custody like “Judiciary-Judiciary”, it will only hamper the interrogation process, NCB didn’t submit to the court that they don’t need Achit’s custody because they want to match the status of his custody with Aryan’s custody, This is absolutely ridiculous TBH
I'm sorry you find my argument as ridiculous. Hope you can validate your argument with proper backing. But don't worry I'm not calling your argument as ridiculous. You maybe right!
I'm sorry you find my argument as ridiculous. Hope you can validate your argument with proper backing. But don't worry I'm not calling your argument as ridiculous. You maybe right!
I am saying it is ridiculous because it is very illogical, why do you think he is sent to custody if the investigation agency involved can’t interrogate him? Why would they keep him in jail and for what when there’s no verdict and investigation is going on?
It boils down to basic definition of both custodies -
When Magistrate orders to send the person to police custody, police will have actual physical custody of the arrested person. Police will detain arrested person in police lock-up and interrogate him to collect necessary information.
In judicial custody, Magistrate will have the custody of the arrested person and he will be sent to jail. During this custody, police can interrogate the arrested person only after the permission of Magistrate. In case of Gian Singh v State of Delhi Administration[iii] it was decided that only interrogation during judicial custody does not change the nature of custody.
https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-difference-between-judicial-custody-and-police-custody/
This is very very basic, we are discussing law here and I am sorry but to think that NCB has to match the nature of custody in order to investigate is absolutely illogical
I am saying it is ridiculous because it is very illogical, why do you think he is sent to custody if the investigation agency involved can’t interrogate him? Why would they keep him in jail and for what when there’s no verdict and investigation is going on?
It boils down to basic definition of both custodies -
When Magistrate orders to send the person to police custody, police will have actual physical custody of the arrested person. Police will detain arrested person in police lock-up and interrogate him to collect necessary information.
In judicial custody, Magistrate will have the custody of the arrested person and he will be sent to jail. During this custody, police can interrogate the arrested person only after the permission of Magistrate. In case of Gian Singh v State of Delhi Administration[iii] it was decided that only interrogation during judicial custody does not change the nature of custody.
https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-difference-between-judicial-custody-and-police-custody/
This is very very basic, we are discussing law here and I am sorry but to think that NCB has to match the nature of custody in order to investigate is absolutely illogical
I hear you first you called it ridiculous then called it absolutely illogical. But I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your argument.
I understand diffrnt types of custodies but thanks for the explanation.
I hear you first you called it ridiculous then called it absolutely illogical. But I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your argument.
I understand diffrnt types of custodies but thanks for the explanation.
“During this custody, police can interrogate the arrested person only after the permission of Magistrate. In case of Gian Singh v State of Delhi Administration[iii] it was decided that only interrogation during judicial custody does not change the nature of custody.”
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579879/
This is the order which states interrogation doesn’t change the nature of custody, Only NCB can interrogate Aryan because the case is with them, who else will interrogate? If there’s no interrogation, why would they keep him in judicial custody?
I have made my points and provided citations for the same, can you substantiate your claim that nature of custody needs to be same for confrontation?
“During this custody, police can interrogate the arrested person only after the permission of Magistrate. In case of Gian Singh v State of Delhi Administration[iii] it was decided that only interrogation during judicial custody does not change the nature of custody.”
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579879/
This is the order which states interrogation doesn’t change the nature of custody, Only NCB can interrogate Aryan because the case is with them, who else will interrogate? If there’s no interrogation, why would they keep him in judicial custody?
I have made my points and provided citations for the same, can you substantiate your claim that nature of custody needs to be same for confrontation?
Sorry again you have not provided a valid citation. I'm specifically looking for the argument YOU made wherein both need not be in same custody to be interrogated together.
You can call it your assumption as well and we can close the argument.
comment:
p_commentcount