Call Detail Records and Co-Accused Disclosures Without Independent Corroboration Are Insufficient to Involve Section 37 NDPS Rigor.

The Petitioner, Abdul Rashid Kohli, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 17/2023 at Police Station Rajbagh, Srinagar, involving the alleged cross-border smuggling of 11 kg of Heroin and recovery of Rs. 11,82,500.

While the contraband was recovered from a rented accommodation occupied by co-accused Sajad Ahmad Badana and Zaheer Ahmad Tanch, the Petitioner was implicated based on disclosure statements made by these co-accused and Call Detail Records (CDRs) allegedly linking him to the conspiracy.

The Petitioner’s bail plea was rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS) Srinagar on August 5, 2025, on the grounds of the gravity of the offence and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court for bail, citing lack of recovery and long incarceration.

1. Whether the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to an accused from whom no recovery was made and whose involvement is predicated solely on co-accused statements and CDRs.

2. Whether call logs and disclosure statements of co-accused, without corroborative evidence like voice recordings or transcripts, constitute "reasonable grounds" to believe the accused is guilty.

The court primarily applied Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which governs punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy, noting its similarity to Section 120-B of the IPC.

The court interpreted the mandatory "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, which require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2020 SC 5592), which held that statements of co-accused are inadmissible and phone records alone fail the "reasonable ground" test.

The Court further referenced Vinay Dua v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, affirming that mere WhatsApp chats and phone calls are insufficient to deny bail under the NDPS Act.

The Court observed that no commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the Petitioner’s possession; his involvement was based entirely on the Section 27 Evidence Act disclosure statements of co-accused and CDRs.

The Court reasoned that call logs, in the absence of audio recordings or transcripts of the actual conversations, are insufficient to establish a nexus with drug trafficking or a criminal conspiracy.

Applying the Tofan Singh principle, the Court found that the prosecution's evidence—consisting of inadmissible co-accused statements and uncorroborated CDRs—did not meet the threshold of "reasonable grounds" required to trigger the statutory bar under Section 37.

Consequently, the Court determined that the rigor of Section 37 did not apply to this specific Petitioner.

The Petitioner was ordered to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions including surrendering his passport, providing his mobile number to the SHO, and dropping a daily Google pin location to monitor his whereabouts.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not reflect an opinion on the merits of the trial.