Anticipatory bail granted where uncorroborated phone calls and unreliable co-accused disclosure constitute the only evidence.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 690/2025 registered at Police Station Kashmere Gate for offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Co-accused Ved Prakash was arrested on 8 October 2025 after recovery of 16.362 kg of ganja. Pursuant to his disclosure, co-accused Ratan Rai was arrested on 11 October 2025 and 5.070 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from him. On Ratan Rai’s disclosure, co-accused Karpai was apprehended and 86 pouches of ganja were recovered from her.

A subsequent raid at the applicant’s residence did not result in his apprehension.

The prosecution relied primarily on 25 telephone calls allegedly made by the applicant to co-accused Ved Prakash between 16 June 2025 and 7 October 2025.

No other evidence was stated to have been collected against the applicant.

The applicant had previously been granted interim protection from arrest subject to joining the investigation, and there was no allegation that he misused that protection.

No contraband was recovered from him or at his instance.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail when no contraband was recovered from him or at his instance and the prosecution evidence consisted principally of alleged telephone contact with a co-accused?

Whether the alleged disclosure statement and subsequent photographic identification by a co-accused provided sufficient material to justify denial of anticipatory bail?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Court applied the general principles governing anticipatory bail, particularly the protection of personal liberty where the prosecution material does not disclose a sufficient basis for custodial arrest.

The Court treated the absence of recovery from, or at the instance of, the applicant, the absence of a specific incriminating communication, and the applicant’s compliance with interim protection as relevant considerations in assessing whether arrest was necessary or justified.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the prosecution had not attributed any recovery of ganja to the applicant and had collected no evidence against him apart from alleged telephonic connectivity with Ved Prakash.

The 25 calls were not intercepted, and therefore there was no evidence of what was discussed during them.

Further, the telephone number allegedly used by Ved Prakash was not registered in his name according to the Customer Application Form, weakening the evidentiary value of the call records.

The Court also viewed the prosecution’s account of the disclosure material critically: although the earlier order recorded that the applicant had not been named by the co-accused, the Investigating Officer subsequently claimed that Ved Prakash had named him as “Ram Prasad” and later identified his photograph.

The Court characterised this investigative development as “farcical”.

In addition, the applicant had not misused the interim protection granted to him.

Taken cumulatively, these circumstances did not justify depriving him of his liberty.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Rupesh Kumar be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer.

The accompanying application was also disposed of.