Disclosure statement of co-accused and unexplained CDRs insufficient to meet NDPS bail thresholds without corroboration.

On January 6, 2025, police conducted a raid at the residence of co-accused Sajid @ Rafikul based on secret information, recovering 197.17 grams of heroin/smack and cash.

Sajid provided a disclosure statement naming the applicant, Nazma, as the supplier.

Analysis of Call Detail Records (CDR) showed 78 telephonic contacts between Nazma and another co-accused, Sahil, between November 2024 and January 2025.

Nazma was declared a proclaimed offender on April 29, 2025, and was eventually arrested on June 11, 2025.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending she was falsely implicated and that no recovery was made from her person.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail when the prosecution's case rests solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and unexplained CDR logs.

Whether the lack of direct recovery and the applicant’s personal circumstances warrant a departure from the rigors of the NDPS Act.

The court primarily applied Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail.

It relied on the landmark Supreme Court precedent Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, which established that disclosure statements made to police officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible as substantive evidence without corroboration.

Furthermore, the court considered the evidentiary value of CDRs in the absence of content or context.

The court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR and no contraband was recovered from her possession.

It held that the prosecution's reliance on the co-accused’s disclosure statement was legally untenable at this stage in light of the Tofan Singh ruling.

Regarding the 78 telephonic contacts, the court reasoned that while the CDRs showed communication, the "purpose, context, or any incriminating act" remained "shrouded in mystery," making it a matter for trial rather than a ground for continued incarceration.

The court also noted the applicant's contention that she did not receive prior notices as they were sent to her matrimonial home where she no longer resided.

Consequently, the court found that the lack of substantive evidence outweighed the State's objection regarding the applicant's involvement in a previous NDPS case.

It held that inadmissible disclosure statements and vague CDR records were insufficient to justify detention.

The applicant was released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions: she must not leave NCT Delhi without permission, must surrender her passport, must provide her mobile location to the Investigating Officer, and must report to the Police Station once every month.