Mumbai: A court in Mumbai on Thursday sent Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, and seven others to14-day judicial custody in a case pertaining to alleged seizure of banned drugs aboard a cruise ship here.The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) made a strong plea for an extension of custody of Aryan Khan (23) and the other accused, saying they need to be confronted with another man arrested in the case to unearth the “chain of conspiracy”. However, the request was not granted.Khan and two other accused Munmun Dhamecha and Arbaaz Merchant were arrested by the NCB on October 3 following a raid on the Goa-bound cruise ship off the Mumbai coast.They were first remanded in one-day NCB custody which was later extended till October 7 by the court. The other five were arrested on October 4 and remanded in NCB custody till October 7.They all were produced before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate R.M. Nerlikar at the end of their earlier remand.Meanwhile, after being remanded in 14-day judicial custody, Aryan Khan and the other accused sought bail from the court. Their pleas will be heard on Friday.The drug law enforcement agency sought extension of their custody till October 11. The NCB told the court they have arrested one Acchit Kumar based on statements given by Aryan Khan and Merchant.The custody of Khan and others was required to confront them with Kumar for unearthing the “chain of conspiracy”, it said.Also read: Two Men Involved in NCB Cruise Raid Civilians, Says NCP; One Admits To Being ‘Loyal BJP Worker’The judge, after hearing the arguments put forth by advocates of all the accused, said the gist of the NCB plea is that it requires the custody of the accused to confront them with Kumar.Kumar was arrested of Wednesday evening. He was produced before the court on Thursday and remanded in NCB custody till October 9.The court said considering the time of Kumar’s arrest, when both Aryan and Kumar were in NCB custody and till his production before the court, nothing was investigated.Further, it was rightly argued by defence advocates that the investigating agency was required to give details of probe conducted so far, but the same was not reflected in their remand extension application, it said.The court mentioned that custody cannot be granted without a “cogent reason”.The probe agency’s remand application doesn’t disclose sufficient ground to grant (further) custody of the accused.“The grounds mentioned are vague and custody cannot be granted based on vague grounds,” the judged noted.Sufficient time was given to the probe agency (for custodial interrogation of the accused), the court said, and rejected its plea for remand extension.