Drugs On Cruise Case: NDPS Court Refuses To Pass Blanket Order Over NCB, Wankhede Plea On ‘Extortion’ Affidavit

According to the NCB and its zonal director, Prabhakar Sail’s allegations were only an attempt to create hurdles and scuttle the investigation into the case.

File Photo

New Delhi: A special court in Mumbai on Monday stated that it cannot pass a blanket order barring courts from taking cognisance of an affidavit of an independent witness in the drugs-on-cruise episode.

The affidavit pertains to allegations of extortion attempt levelled against Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede and others wherein it was claimed that they tried to extort money from actor Shah Rukh Khan, whose son Aryan is an accused in the case.

The NCB and Sameer Wankhede had earlier in the day filed two separate affidavits before the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) court against the allegations of extortion attempt put up against them.

In the affidavits, the anti-drugs agency and Wankhede sought the court to pass an order saying no court should take cognisance of the affidavit prepared by the independent witness, Prabhakar Sail, news agency PTI reported.

According to the NCB and its zonal director, Prabhakar Sail’s allegations were only an attempt to create hurdles and scuttle the investigation into the case.

The central agency also sought for the court to pass appropriate orders to ensure there is no tampering with the evidence or investigation in the case.

Special Judge VV Patil, designated to hear cases related to the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, disposed of the affidavits, saying such blanket orders cannot be passed.

Considering the nature of the relief claimed in the applications (affidavits), no such blanket orders can be passed. It is for the concerned court or authority to pass appropriate order at the relevant stage, the court said, as reported by PTI.

It further stated that the matter was sub-judice before the Bombay High Court which is scheduled to hear the bail pleas filed by Aryan Khan (23) and his co-accused in the drugs case Munmun Dhamecha on Tuesday.

Therefore, no such orders can be passed by the court as prayed. Hence, the applications are disposed of, the court ruled.

NCB Mumbai Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede, in his affidavit submitted to the court, denied the payoff allegation, and claimed he was under a “lurking threat of arrest as it does not suit some vested interests for conducting an honest and impartial investigation”.

As per PTI’s report, the IRS officer further stated that he was being personally targeted by a well-known political figure, and the only reason he can fathom is that the NCB had arrested “this person’s son-in-law Sameer Khan”.

Sameer Khan, who is currently out on bail, is the son-in-law of NCP leader and Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik who has been making a series of allegations against NCB and its NCB Mumbai Zonal Director.

Prabhakar Sail’s Allegation

In a statement to the media, Prabhakar Sail on Sunday claimed that Rs 25 crore was demanded by an official of the NCB and other persons, including absconding witness KP Gosavi, to let off Aryan Khan in the case.

Prabhakar Sail claimed that he had overheard Gosavi telling one Sam D’souza over the phone, after Aryan Khan was brought to the NCB office following the October 2 raid on the cruise ship, about a demand of Rs 25 crore and “to settle at Rs 18 crore as they have to give Rs eight crore to Sameer Wankhede”.

The independent witness in the drugs-on-cruise episode further stated that he would soon release evidence to support his claim.

The NCB and Wankhede rubbished these claims in their affidavits submitted to the NDPS court on Monday.

An NCB team led by Wankhede earlier this month allegedly seized drugs onboard a cruise ship off the Mumbai coast following which Aryan Khan and some others were arrested on October 3.

He is currently lodged in the Arthur Road jail in Mumbai under judicial custody. The special NDPS court had last week refused to grant him bail after which he approached the high court.

(With Agency Inputs)