E-Paper
‘Drug party’ raid: Seven remanded in police custody till July 29
The accused were produced before the holiday court, where public prosecutor Priyanka Vengurlekar sought seven days’ police custody
Pune: Judicial Magistrate First Class NS Bari on Sunday remanded seven individuals, including Pranjal Khewalkar—son-in-law of NCP (SP) leader Eknath Khadse—in police custody till July 29 in connection with a drug bust during a suspected party in Kharadi area.
The accused were produced before the holiday court, where public prosecutor Priyanka Vengurlekar sought seven days’ police custody. She argued that further interrogation was necessary to trace the origin of the drugs, examine prior party records, and determine the involvement of other individuals. She also noted that some of the accused had criminal backgrounds and that the investigation was at a preliminary stage.
Defence advocate Vijaysinh Thombare, representing Khewalkar, alleged that his client was being falsely implicated due to political motives. “This is nothing but an attempt to sabotage my client’s political career. His wife holds a political office, and this appears to be a trap,” he told the court. He claimed that there was no evidence of drug consumption by Khewalkar and that no medical report had been submitted to the court.
According to the prosecution, Pune Police raided a serviced apartment in the early hours of Sunday based on specific information. The apartment, booked in Khewalkar’s name, was the site of a party where five men and two women were present. Police seized liquor bottles, hookah setups, ganja, and 2.7 grams of cocaine—classified as an intermediate quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985. Videos from the party, showing scenes of chaos and a woman in distress, went viral on social media.
Prosecutor Vengurlekar said that the accused were habitual offenders and reiterated that the police followed due procedure. “This is not an isolated case. The recovered contraband and supporting evidence validate the charges,” she said.
Thombare countered that his client had been under surveillance for months. “Police have previously followed him on two occasions and collected CCTV footages from hotels. This is the third time, and it seems to be a deliberate move to frame him. My client is not a criminal,” he said.
Advocate Abid Mulani, representing two other accused, raised legal concerns over the arrests. “The investigating agency failed to inform the accused of the grounds of their arrest at the time of detention, violating Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This renders their continued custody unlawful,” he argued. He submitted that accused number 3 and number 4 neither possessed nor consumed any narcotics, making the invocation of the NDPS Act against them untenable.
While the court has kept the question of the legality of arrest open for further consideration, Mulani contended that continued custody of these two accused is unwarranted and amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
