Mere call-record connectivity, without incriminating content or linkage to the accused, does not prima facie establish NDPS conspiracy.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 69/2024 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Tasleema was apprehended pursuant to secret information and 305 grams of heroin was recovered from her; other accused, including the applicant, were subsequently arrested on the basis of her custodial statements.

No contraband or other incriminating material was recovered from the applicant, who had remained in custody since 16 May 2024.

The State relied on alleged telephonic connectivity between the applicant and Tasleema to invoke Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicant’s earlier bail application had been withdrawn on 19 March 2026 with liberty to approach the trial court after examination of the recovery witnesses; however, charge had still not been framed.

Whether the applicant could be granted bail where no contraband or other incriminating material was recovered from him and the alleged conspiracy was based only on telephone call logs.

Whether the present bail application was maintainable despite the earlier bail application having been withdrawn with liberty to seek bail before the trial court after examination of the recovery witnesses.

The Court considered the offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, including the allegation of conspiracy under Section 29.

The Court proceeded on the principle that mere telephonic connectivity, without evidence regarding the substance of the conversations or other incriminating circumstances, does not by itself constitute prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

It further applied the principle that the withdrawal of an earlier bail application with liberty to approach an appropriate court does not, in the circumstances of the case, justify continued incarceration where the material circumstances warrant reconsideration, particularly when the trial has not progressed to framing of charge.

No judicial precedents were expressly relied upon.

The Court noted that the applicant was not found in possession of contraband and that the State’s case against him rested principally on alleged telephone connectivity with Tasleema.

The investigation record contained only call logs, with no interception or other material showing what was discussed between the two persons; therefore, connectivity simpliciter could not be treated as incriminating evidence for the purpose of the alleged conspiracy.

The Court also found the connectivity theory prima facie weaker because the telephone allegedly used by the applicant was registered in the name of Tasleema’s son.

Although the State objected to maintainability based on the earlier withdrawal of the bail application, the Court held that continued detention solely for that reason would be unfair, particularly since charge had not yet been framed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not bind the trial court at final arguments.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the applicant.