The court ruled that mere reliance on disclosure statements and call data records without direct recovery of contraband is insufficient for conviction, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty.

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This petition seeks regular bail for petitioner in FIR No. 21/2021 PS Crime Branch under Sections 20/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’). FIR was registered on 10th February 2021. Petitioner has been incarcerated since 17th January 2023 and has no previous involvements.

Background facts

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 10th February 2021, responding to a secret information, two persons namely Mohit Yadav and Subhash Chander @ Deepu were apprehended from over bridge DND, Ring Road Delhi, with a truck UP 81AF 7152 found with 116.5 kgs of cannabis in 5 plastic bags. During the course of investigation, accused Mohit Yadav disclosed that he had been directed by one Prince resident of Noida, Uttar Pradesh, to meet one Sushant @ Badakulu Ladu (petitioner) in Orissa. He met Sushant in Digaphandi, Orissa, who handed over 5 plastic bags of cannabis to him. The cannabis, according to disclosure, was to be delivered to Prince; mobile number of Sushant was provided by Mohit Yadav. On 15th February 2021, proceedings under Section 52A of the Act were conducted before Saket Court, Delhi. Samples were drawn from all 5 plastic bags. On 16th February 2021, samples were deposited in FSL, Rohini, for expert opinion on the contraband. On 6th July 2021, FSL report stated that the contraband was found to be cannabis (ganja).

3. Registered owner of recovered truck was one Sriniwas, resident of District Aligarh, U.P., who stated that he had sold his truck to one Pushpender Gupta, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. Pushpender Gupta stated that he had handed over the truck to Mohit Yadav for transportation from Delhi to Orissa. He did not state anything about recovered cannabis.

4. Both Sriniwas and Pushpender were kept in Column 12 of the charge-sheet since there was no direct evidence against them. The CAF of Sushant’s mobile number 7788915531 was obtained from Jio Telecom Services and found registered in the name of petitioner who was resident of Digaphandi, Orissa.

5. Accused Mohit Yadav identified Sushant @ Badakulu Ladu by seeing his photo in CAF. As per CDR analysis of mobile numbers of Mohit and that of petitioner, both were found connected with each other and had contacted each other 16 times between 1st February 2021 to 10th February 2021. Their locations were found in Digaphandi, Orissa. Raids were conducted at petitioner’s residence at his village in Orissa but he was avoiding arrest. NBWs were issued but could not be executed as petitioner could not be found. Process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) were issued from the Trial Court.

6. On 15th January 2023, Special Cell, Southern Range, Saket, arrested petitioner from Ganjam, Orissa; on 17th January 2023, he was formally arrested and examined. As per prosecution, he disclosed that one Prince @ Pushpender @ Rahul used to buy cannabis from him and had sent the money in his SBI account No.35545981890. The same was verified from accounts statement. Money was found transferred in this account from one Raghavendra Gupta in three tranches, two of Rs.10,000/- and one of Rs.20,000/-. Raghavendra Gupta was interrogated and stated that he had paid this amount as per directions of his brother Pushpender. Supplementary charge-sheet was submitted. On 8th December 2023, charges were framed against all the accused.

7. Petitioner was granted interim bail for a period of 12 days vide order dated 23rd February 2024 of this Court, for the marriage of his niece. He was released on 22nd April 2024 and surrendered on 4th May 2024.

Submissions on behalf of Petitioner

8. Counsel for the petitioner mounted his case on three aspects:

Firstly, that sampling was defective and not in compliance with Section 52A of the Act; Secondly, the petitioner was arrested merely on the basis of disclosure, CDR analysis and monetary transactions; Thirdly, that proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. would not disentitle the