Call Logs Alone Cannot Prove Criminal Conspiracy Under NDPS Act In Absence Of Voice Recording Or Transcripts: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that mere call detail records showing contact between an accused and a co-accused are not sufficient to establish a nexus with drug trafficking, especially in the absence of voice recordings or transcripts of the conversation, and that call logs alone cannot prove a criminal conspiracy for sale or transportation of drugs.The Court was hearing a bail application filed by an accused who was not in possession of any contraband but was charged under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged abetment and criminal conspiracy based on disclosure statements of co-accused and phone call logs.A Single Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while allowing the bail application, observed that“... without any other evidence from CDRs showing contact between an accused and a co-accused are not sufficient to establish a nexus with drug trafficking, especially without voice recording or transcripts of the conversation. As per the Prosecution Story, there is neither any recording nor any transcript of the conversation on the file, as such, call logs alone cannot prove a criminal conspiracy of sale or transportation of drugs.”The petitioner, Abdul Rashid Kohli, was facing trial in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 8/21, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that police received information that two persons were dealing with contraband substances from a rented accommodation. Upon search, 11 kilograms of heroin (11 packets of 1 kg each) and Indian currency of Rs. 11,82,500 were recovered from the said accommodation. The two accused present at the spot made voluntary disclosures before a Magistrate, naming the petitioner as a co-conspirator who had entered into a criminal conspiracy to procure heroin from a person in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and transport it to Srinagar.The petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted. The trial court rejected his bail application holding that the case involved cross-border smuggling and that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been satisfied, observing that 'negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception'. The petitioner then approached the High Court.Court's Observations:The High Court noted that the commercial quantity of contraband was not recovered or seized from the petitioner. He had been charged primarily under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which punishes abetment and criminal conspiracy. The Court observed that Section 29 is almost pari materia in spirit to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.The Court examined the evidence against the petitioner, which consisted of disclosure statements made by co-accused (accused Nos. 1 and 2, from whom the contraband was recovered) and call detail records showing that the petitioner had made calls to the co-accused and shared his location around the time of seizure. The Court held that “the only evidence against the Petitioner is the statements made in their disclosures by the co-accused No. 1 and 2 and the calls made by him to them. Without any other evidence from CDRs showing contact between an accused and a co-accused are not sufficient to establish a nexus with drug trafficking, especially without voice recording or transcripts of the conversation.”The Court then reproduced Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes limitations on bail for offences involving commercial quantity. It requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592) , the Court noted that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and if phone records are the only link, they fail to meet the reasonable ground test under Section 37. The Court also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Vinay Dua v. State Government of NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN No. 900/2025, holding that mere WhatsApp chats and phone calls with co-accused are not enough to deny bail under the NDPS Act.The Court concluded that since the petitioner was not found in possession of any contraband and the only evidence against him were disclosure statements and phone logs, the test of reasonable grounds to deny bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not applicable. The Court remarked, “the accused-Petitioner is entitled to be granted bail, in that, the test of reasonable grounds to deny bail as per the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner herein.”Thus the Court allowed the bail application and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to conditions. Case Title: Abdul Rashid Kohli v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 187AppearancesPetitioner: Mr. S. T. Hussain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nida Nazir,...

Call Logs Alone Cannot Prove Criminal Conspiracy Under NDPS Act In Absence Of Voice Recording Or Transcripts: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Call Logs Alone Cannot Prove Criminal Conspiracy Under NDPS Act In Absence Of Voice Recording Or Transcripts: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers