Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Nov 4: High Court has ruled that Call Detail Records (CDRs) without voice recording (evidence) cannot demonstrate the involvement in a narcotic offence and the same is not sufficient to sustain the person guilty.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while granting bail to a man accused of conspiring to receive a large consignment of narcotics has held that CDRs without voice evidence is insufficient to connect the person with the offence under NDPS Act as CDR records showing calls between the accused-applicant and co-accused, without voice evidence, are not enough to establish him guilty in an NDPS case.
The Court was hearing a bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS by a man arrested by the NCB in connection with the alleged trafficking of commercial quantities of codeine syrup, Alprazolam tablets etc.
Highlighting that neither the applicant’s statement nor the statement of co-accused recorded under the provision of the NDPS Act, the CDR details showing contact between the applicant and co-accused, without there being any voice recording relating to conversation between them, may not be sufficient to convict him for the offence for which he has been booked.
The fact of the case is that the NCB Jammu received a secret input about two individuals transporting a drug consignment from Delhi to Anantnag. When the bus they were travelling in was intercepted, narcotic drugs were recovered from their possession.
During the investigation, the co-accused made confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, implicating himself and the petitioner in the commission of offences. After his arrest, mobile phones were seized, and CDR analysis showed that the applicant was in contact with the co-accused.
The applicant has sought bail on the ground that Section 67 statements are inadmissible and CDRs alone do not establish involvement. The Court also said that no other material had been produced to demonstrate that the applicant was previously engaged in similar conduct, nor was there anything to suggest that he would abscond or threaten witnesses if released.
Justice Dhar after analyzing the law and hearing both the parties allowed the bail application and enlarged the applicant-accused on bail with the conditions that the applicant would furnish solvent sureties and appear before the trial court on each date of hearing. “He further shall not contact prosecution witnesses and do not leave the limits of Union Territory without prior permission from the concerned court, and surrender his passport.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
