CDRs Not Enough: New High Court Stand Strengthens NDPS Act Bail Cases

Case Title: Sareed Ahmed Ganie v. Union of India & Another.

Introduction

In a notable decision strengthening evidentiary protections under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court determined that Call Detail Records (CDRs) indicating communication between accused individuals, absent any related voice recordings, cannot solely warrant the refusal of bail in cases involving substantial amounts of narcotics.

A Single-Judge Bench led by Justice Sanjay Dhar approved bail for an individual charged with conspiring alongside two accomplices to obtain a substantial shipment of codeine syrup, Alprazolam pills, and Spasmo-Proxyvon capsules. The petitioner was apprehended by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and indicted under Sections 8, 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act. His application for bail was submitted according to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CDR Evidence Alone Cannot Establish Conspiracy

In evaluating the evidential significance of the prosecution's evidence, the Court noted:

“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 stressed that simply having phone contact does not constitute evidence of criminal conspiracy, particularly in the absence of any communication content. CDRs alone indicate that calls occurred, but without voice evidence or further supporting material, they do not reveal the purpose or nature of the communication.

Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements: Tofan Singh Judgment and Its Impact on NDPS Act Bail

An essential element of the prosecution’s case involved confessions made by the petitioner and co-accused pursuant to Section 67 of the NDPS Act, a crucial point often examined in NDPS Act bail hearings. Nevertheless, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir rejected the evidential significance of these declarations by directly utilizing the Supreme Court’s pivotal decision in:

Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)

where a bench of three judges determined that:

• NCB officers function as police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

• Statements documented under Section 67 cannot be accepted as confessions.

Based on this binding precedent, Justice Dhar noted that neither the confession of the petitioner nor that of the co-accused could be utilized against him.

Secret Information, Seizure, and Arrest

The NCB's investigation started with confidential intelligence suggesting that two persons were carrying illegal drugs from Delhi to Anantnag. While stopping their bus, officials reportedly seized significant amounts of narcotic syrups, tablets, and capsules.

While examining:

• The co-accused involved themselves and the petitioner in declarations made under Section 67.

• The petitioner’s device was confiscated.

• Analysis of the CDR indicated that he had communicated with the co-defendant.

Though the NCB contended that these communications indicated collaboration for drug delivery, the Court deemed the evidence inadequate to meet the rigorous criteria of Section 37 NDPS Act.

Section 37 NDPS Act: Twin Conditions Must Be Satisfied

According to Section 37, bail cannot be granted in cases involving commercial quantities unless:

1. The court is convinced that the defendant is innocent, and

2. It is improbable that he will engage in a crime while released on bail.

The examination by the Court showed:

• No acceptable evidence connecting the petitioner to the possession or movement of the drugs.

• No proof of prior participation in comparable crimes.

• No evidence indicating possible flight risk or interference with witnesses.

Based on this, the Court determined there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was innocent, thus fulfilling Section 37.

Way forward: Bail Granted with Strict Conditions

The Court granted the bail request and directed that the petitioner be released under conditions such as:

• Offering solvent guarantees, 

• Presenting oneself before the trial court consistently, 

• Failing to reach out to witnesses, 

• Not exiting the Union Territory without obtaining prior approval, 

• Submitting his passport. 

Lawttorney’s Viewpoint: An Essential Reaffirmation of Evidence Protections in NDPS Legal Principles.

This decision represents an essential reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards in heavily criminalised NDPS cases, where the bail threshold is notoriously elevated. The ruling highlights two essential principles:

CDRs serve as supporting evidence rather than conclusive evidence, except when accompanied by voice recordings or other substantial connections.

Post-Tofan Singh, Section 67 statements cannot serve as the foundation of the prosecution.

Lawttorney notes that this ruling will greatly impact NDPS litigation tactics throughout India. Defence attorneys, prosecutors, and investigators are progressively expected to depend on forensic, digital, and acceptable evidence, rather than just procedural assertions or conjectural conclusions.

This situation underscores the necessity of AI-based legal solutions such as Lawttorney.ai. With a single-click entry to:

• CDR eligibility case law,

• Section 67 jurisprudencia,

• List of NDPS bail requirements,

• The development of case law following Tofan Singh,

Lawttorney allows attorneys to craft accurate arguments that conform to present judicial norms.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now