Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 30: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to Salim Khan, observing that mere call detail records or contact with a co-accused cannot be treated as sufficient corroborative material in the absence of conversation transcripts in a drugs case.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri passed the order while allowing the bail application filed by the petitioner, who was lodged in District Jail, Kathua, after his earlier bail plea had been rejected by the trial court.
As per the prosecution case, the Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu, had received source information that four parcels containing Codeine-based cough syrup and Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules were being transported in a truck from Delhi to Srinagar. The vehicle was intercepted at Lakhanpur and the alleged contraband was recovered from one of the parcels.
The prosecution alleged that co-accused Asif Ishtiyaq disclosed during his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that he had ordered the contraband from Salim Khan and paid around Rs 65,000 to him. The investigating agency also relied upon call detail records, bank statements and mobile phone material to oppose the bail plea.
The petitioner argued that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and that he was neither the consignor nor the consignee of the seized parcels. It was further submitted that the case against him was primarily based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which could not be relied upon as a confessional statement.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held that a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in trial. The court observed that an accused can be granted bail where he is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement and no substantial corroborative material is available.
Dealing with the reliance on CDRs, the court held that in the absence of transcripts of conversations exchanged between the accused persons, mere call details, call data records or contact with the co-accused cannot be considered sufficient corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.
The court further noted that the parcel was shown to have been booked by Verma Electricals and the consignee was Farooq Ahmed Labroo, while the alleged receiver was another accused. The petitioner, therefore, was neither the consignor, nor the consignee, nor the receiver of the parcel containing the alleged contraband.
Holding that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply with the same force in the circumstances, the court allowed the bail plea.
The petitioner has been directed to be released on bail on furnishing a solvent surety bond of Rs 1 lakh and a personal bond, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission, commit a similar offence or influence witnesses.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
