The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under Sections 18 and 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, observing that the prosecution had failed to place any material prima facie connecting him with the alleged conspiracy to transport contraband. The Court noted that the only basis for implicating the accused was the confessional statement of a co-accused and certain mobile phone location and call records which did not establish any substantive link with the applicant.
The case arose from FIR registered at Police Station Special Cell, where the prosecution alleged that 41.260 kg of opium being transported from Manipur to Delhi was recovered from a truck driven by a co-accused during a raid conducted on the basis of secret information. The role attributed to the applicant was that he had booked the consignment from Manipur and subsequently travelled to Delhi.
Before the Court, counsel for the applicant submitted that he had been in custody since June 19, 2023 despite there being no admissible evidence against him, and that his implication was based solely on the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded in police custody. The prosecution, relying on Section 29 of the NDPS Act, argued that the applicant was involved as a conspirator and pointed to evidence in the form of his alleged location in Manipur prior to dispatch of the consignment and telephonic connectivity with the co-accused.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the location of the applicant in Manipur had been deduced by the investigating officer on the basis of mobile phone location, while the alleged telephonic connectivity was based on certain phone numbers attributed to the accused and the co-accused. However, the Court noted that according to the Customer Application Form, the mobile number ascribed to the applicant actually belonged to another individual and there was no material to connect the applicant with that phone.
The Court further observed that mobile phone towers typically cover large areas and numerous users, and that mere telephonic connectivity, without any material regarding the contents of the conversation, cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In the absence of any additional material to establish the alleged conspiracy, the Court held that there was no reason to deprive the applicant of his liberty any further.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed that the accused be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, while clarifying that the observations in the order would not prejudice either side at the stage of trial.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with Inspector Sanjeev Kumar
