Arrested ‘drug dealer’ claims police mistook him for suspect
ABU DHABI // A man arrested for drug dealing during a police ambush was mistaken for the real suspect police were after, the Criminal Court heard on Tuesday.
Anti-narcotics police were originally investigating a man named Raju who had a different phone number and job details than the defendant, N A, whom they ended up arresting, claimed his defence lawyer Khalaf Al Houssani.
“Raju had a phone number that starts with 055 ... which does not belong to my client,” he said.
“Also Raju worked for a company in Dubai, whereas my client works for a completely different company.”
The lawyer claimed that police had prepared an ambush to meet Raju at a certain area on March 21, while they were waiting, N A, from India, drove towards them with three passengers and police assumed he was the person they were waiting for.
They arrested all four men and accused them of bringing drugs into the UAE with the intent to supply.
“The arrest procedures were invalid, because the arrest warrant was issued for Raju, and the defendants were not caught in the act or in possession of any material.”
“It has been proven that the defendant has no connection to Raju at all,” he added.
The lawyers involved in the case all agreed that the arrest procedure was invalid because the warrant was issued in someone else’s name and none of them were caught in the act, meaning all inspections and urine samples that followed are invalid.
The only evidence found against the men, was drug percentages in their samples, but that was extracted following invalid procedures and should therefore be deemed invalid as well, they argued.
The fourth defendant, I T H, from India, denied consuming drugs throughout investigations and he only admitted smoking a cigarette handed to him by his friends, said his lawyer.
He argued that his client, who was consuming hashish unknowingly through the cigarette for the first time in his life, was unaware of the scent and taste of the drug, so he was unaware he was consuming it.
“He was a victim of passive smoking because he was in a closed car with three men smoking the drug,” he added.
All defendants denied their charges.
The case was adjourned.
Published: June 30, 2015 04:00 AM