Absence of material connecting accused to mobile phone subscription precludes reliance on call records for NDPS conspiracy.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 154/2023 (PS Special Cell) involving offences under Sections 18 and 24 of the NDPS Act

The prosecution alleged that 41.260 kg of opium were recovered from a truck driven by co-accused Mohan Lal, originating from Manipur

The applicant was implicated as a conspirator who allegedly booked the consignment in Manipur before flying to Delhi

He remained in custody from 19.06.2023

The state’s evidence rested on the applicant’s presence in Manipur and call records between him and the co-accused

Whether there is sufficient prima facie incriminating evidence to justify continued incarceration and the denial of regular bail to the applicant under the NDPS Act?

The court primarily applied Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act regarding abetment and criminal conspiracy

It further applied the principle that a confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody is inadmissible for the purpose of primary evidence

Additionally, the court relied on the evidentiary principle that mere telephonic connectivity and cell tower location, absent the contents of conversations or proof of ownership of the device, do not constitute sufficient incriminating material for a prima facie case

The court found that the prosecution's case against the applicant as a conspirator lacked foundational evidence.

First, the mobile phone number attributed to the applicant was registered in the name of a third party (one Haukholen Akipjen), and the IO failed to establish a link between the applicant and the device

Second, the court noted that mere location in a specific geographic area (Manipur) via cell tower data is insufficient for conviction, as towers cover large areas and many users

Third, regarding the calls between the applicant and the co-accused, the court emphasized that the calls were not intercepted or recorded; therefore, the nature of the conversation remained unknown

Consequently, the court reasoned that mere telephonic contact with an unverified subscriber cannot serve as incriminating evidence

The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety

The court clarified that these observations would not prejudice the final trial