Mere Call Detail Records Without Voice Evidence Not Enough To Link Accused To Drug Trafficking: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while granting bail to one accused under the NDPD Act, has ruled that mere call detail records (CDRs) showing contact between the accused and co-accused, in the absence of any voice recordings or corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as sufficient material to connect him with the alleged offence of drug trafficking under the Act.The Court, presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar, made these observations while allowing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), in connection with a Case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Zonal Unit, Jammu, under Sections 8/21/22/29 of the NDPS Act. Background:According to the prosecution, NCB Jammu received a secret input on that two individuals Zahoor Ahmad Shah and Mohammad Abas Bhat were travelling from Jammu to Delhi in a passenger bus with a large quantity of narcotic drugs. Acting on the information, NCB officials intercepted the bus and recovered 220 bottles of Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate syrup, 14,106 Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules, and 3,000 Alprazolam tablets.The accused disclosed that the contraband had been supplied by one Mohammad Shahbaaz in Delhi and was meant to be delivered to Sareed Ahmad Ganie, the present petitioner, at Anantnag. Subsequently, their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded, in which they allegedly confessed their roles and implicated Ganie.The petitioner himself was arrested and his statement was also recorded under Section 67, wherein he purportedly admitted his involvement. Based on the CDR analysis, NCB claimed that Ganie was in constant touch with the other accused, particularly around 24 August 2024, two days before the recovery of the contraband.Following investigation, NCB filed a complaint before the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba. The petitioner's earlier bail plea had been rejected by the trial court on 31 December 2024, leading him to approach the High Court.Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no legally admissible material connecting him to the seized narcotics. The alleged confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, they contended, were inadmissible in evidence in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.It was further contended that apart from the inadmissible confessional statements, there was nothing but CDRs showing phone contact with the co-accused which, without any recorded conversation, could not establish his complicity in the alleged conspiracy.The respondents, represented by the DSGI, opposed the bail plea, submitting that the offence involved commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, attracting the stringent bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and hence bail could not be granted unless the twin conditions were satisfied.They asserted that there was sufficient material to suggest the petitioner's involvement in the illicit trafficking network.Courts Observations:Justice Dhar began by reiterating the settled principles governing bail in non-bailable offences, emphasizing that under the NDPS Act, courts must also satisfy the statutory twin conditions under Section 37 namely, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.Turning to the facts, the Court noted that the prosecution primarily relied upon two pieces of evidence (1) the statements of the petitioner and co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and (2) the CDR analysis showing that they were in touch around the time of the incident.The Court held that the first category of evidence of confessional statements made before NCB officials was inadmissible, referring to the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh (supra), where it was held that such statements cannot be treated as evidence.“Therefore, any statement made by accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicating the petitioner or any statement made by the petitioner implicating himself before the officials of NCB in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence,” Justice Dhar observed.This left only the CDR evidence, which, in the Court's view, was insufficient on its own to connect the petitioner with the recovered contraband.“CDR details showing contact between the petitioner and co-accused, without there being any voice recording relating to conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner for the offence for which he has been booked,” the Court remarked.Holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 of the NDPS Act, the Court found that the prosecution had not shown any previous involvement of the petitioner in similar offences, nor was there any likelihood of him reoffending if released on bail.“In...

Mere Call Detail Records Without Voice Evidence Not Enough To Link Accused To Drug Trafficking: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags