No Drugs Recovered From Him, 585 Calls With Co-Accused: Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail, Says Bank And Call Records Are For Trial

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 160/2026, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Omprakash Maurya was apprehended with 4 grams of cocaine and 20 grams of smack, and that he disclosed that money from drug sales had been transferred to the petitioner’s bank account on the instructions of another accused.

The State also relied on financial transactions and 585 calls between the petitioner and that accused.

No narcotics were recovered from the petitioner.

His anticipatory-bail application before the Special Court had been dismissed; non-bailable warrants were later issued, and the State said he remained absconding.

The petitioner said the transactions were loans and offered to cooperate with the investigation.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail, while Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes statutory restrictions on bail in specified cases.

Relying on Deepak Nagiya v. State (NCT of Delhi), which referred to State (by NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallubid Ahmad Armutta and Phundreimayum Yas Khan v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court stated that the evidentiary value of call detail records is ordinarily a matter for trial and that CDRs alone cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail.

The Court also considered Salman Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi, which, referring to Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotic Control Bureau, emphasized the need for material beyond a co-accused’s disclosure to establish a substantive link between an accused and illicit trafficking; mere contact or monetary transactions, without substantive corroboration, do not by themselves establish such involvement.

The Court noted that no narcotic substance had been recovered from the petitioner and that his implication rested on the co-accused’s disclosure, financial records, and CDRs.

It treated the evaluation of the financial transactions and call records as matters for trial and found that, on the material before it, a direct link between the petitioner and the recovery from Omprakash Maurya had not been established.

It therefore declined to subject the petitioner to the rigours of Section 37.

The State’s concerns about witness influence or further offending could be addressed through bail conditions.

In the event of arrest in FIR No. 160/2026, the petitioner was to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to the Trial Court’s satisfaction and conditions including joining the investigation when called, surrendering any passport, providing working mobile numbers, remaining at his stated address absent court permission, and not committing an offence, contacting prosecution witnesses, or tampering with evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not affect subsequent proceedings on their merits.