Confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS inadmissible for bail; mere call detail records of contact without recovery or corroboration insufficient to refuse bail under Section 37 twin conditions.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Heard Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the state, and pursued the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during trial in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under sections 8/20/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-N.C.B., District- Lucknow, during pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, the contraband substance i.e., 11 kg of charas is said to be recovered from the possession of the co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR nor in the recovery memo and his name has surfaced in the statement of arrested accused recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu , (2021) 4 SCC 1 and Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat and another , (2020) 13 SCC 447.

6. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history, and he has been in jail since 30.1.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant fleeing after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail application. Further, it has been contended that a detailed Call Detail Record (CDR) has been submitted by the investigating authority connecting the accused to the applicant, and it has been contended that the applicant Munna Ansari was in constant contact with the accused. In support of his submissions, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ratan Mallik , 2009 (2) SCC 624 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal , (2022) SCC OnLine SC 891. The relevant paragraph of Mohit Aggarwal (supra) is quoted hereunder:-

"16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellantNCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh (supra), wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellantNCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. The appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein sh