Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
VISHAL JAISWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPL. 3254/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Meghan, Mr. Mukul Gupta, Mr. Harsh Kant Tiwary
For the Respondents: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
The court established that merely relying on CDRs and confessions from co-accused lacks sufficient weight to deny anticipatory bail if not corroborated by concrete evidence.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22 and 29 - Anticipatory Bail application filed by the Applicant, who is alleged to be the supplier of Tramadol capsules identified by co-accused - Prosecution relies on CDRs and disclosures by co-accused as sole evidence - Court reiterates that CDR evidence is subject to trial - Precedents cited regarding anticipatory bail principles reaffirming that such evidence alone does not suffice for bail denial. (Paras 4, 28, 30, 32)
(B) Bail application - Criteria for granting anticipatory bail include addressing flight risk and evidence tampering - Applicant asserted to fulfill 'triple test' for bail and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. (Paras 12, 33)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution case stemmed from a raid revealing an extensive drug supply chain involving Tramadol, implicating the applicant through statements of co-accused, while the applicant's defense centers on lack of direct evidence and potential coercion in statements against him.
Findings of Court:
The court balanced the allegations of drug supply against the evidence presented, focusing on the reliance on CDRs and co-accused disclosures, ultimately finding grounds for bail under stipulated conditions.
Issues: Determining the weight of CDR evidence against the applicant and whether the absence of direct recovery from the applicant's premises substantiates bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of CDRs and co-accused confessions alone is insufficient for denying bail, stressing the need for robust incriminating materials.
Result: The anticipatory bail application is granted under specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. anticipatory bail sought in drug trafficking case. (Para 2 , 20) |
| 2. initial facts about the drug supply and implicated parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. applicant's alleged role in drug supply questioned. (Para 6 , 8 , 26) |
| 4. applicant claims non-involvement and willingness to cooperate. (Para 9 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. applicant's defense concerning his involvement and role. (Para 19) |
| 6. prosecution relies on cdrs and disclosure statements. (Para 21 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. cdrs must be corroborated; they alone cannot deny bail. (Para 28 , 32) |
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that on 01.06.2025, secret information was received regarding the supply of Tramadol Capsules, which is a psychotropic substance. A DD entry was lodged, and a raiding team was constituted. A trap was laid at Gate No. 2, outside Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The secret informer identified a person standing on the footpath with a cloth/plastic bag in his hand, next to a black scooty, as the suspected supplier of “Tramadol.” He was apprehended and disclosed his name as Harish. His search was conducted, and from the bag, 15 small boxes of SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS medicine were recovered. Each box contained 18 strips with 18 capsules each, totalling 2160 capsules. From the description, each capsule contained 50 mg of Tramadol, amounting to a total of 108 grams. The co-accused Harish failed to produce any Bills regarding the recovered medicine.
3. Upon interrogation, co-accused Harish stated that he had purchased these drugs from one Gautam, whose phone number was saved in his mobile. He also confessed to selling several such Tramadol boxes in recent days. Thereafter, raids were conducted to trace co-accused Gautam Singh. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide Order dated 17.06.2025, by the Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari.
4. On 22.06.2025, co-accused Gautam Singh appeared at the office of WR-11, where he was arrested. When his phone was examined, photos of Tramadol and other suspicious medicines were found. Gautam Singh disclosed the name of Amit Goyal, an ayurvedic medicine seller based in Gorakhpur. He stated that Amit Goyal had delivered Tramadol to him thrice, concealed in packages sent through private passenger bus services. On 26.06.2025, acting on his disclosure, Amit Goyal was located at his shop, “Goyal Pharma,” Bhalotiya Market, Gorakhpur.
5. A Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was given, and search of his shop was conducted. However, no incriminating material was found and no recovery was made. Thereafter, Amit Goyal was taken to the local police station. After detailed interrogation and verification of the CDRs, he was arrested from Police Station Cantt, Gorakhpur, UP.
6. Amit Goyal then disclosed that since early 2024, he had been delivering Tramadol to Gautam Singh. He further states that one Vishal Jaiswal, the present Applicant, is the supplier who provides him the Tramadol, which he in turn, delivers to Gautam Singh in Delhi.
7. Two Notices under Section 67 NDPS Act were served on the father of the Applicant, directing the Applicant to join the investigation. However, he did not join. An Anticipatory Bail Application was filed by the Applicant, Vishal Jaiswal, before the Ld. Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide Order dated 08.08.2025. Thereafter, a third Notice under Section 67 NDPS Act was served on the father of the Applicant, but again, the Applicant failed to join the investigation.
8. The Anticipatory Bail has been sought on the ground that he has no role in the recovery at hand. It is submitted that he runs a Medical Store in the name of “Prem Medical Agency” wherein his father is the License holder, and he has no connection with the present case.
9. It is further submitted that the reason for the Applicant having telephonic conversations with co-accused Amit Goyal, is that their shops are adjoining to each other. These calls were made only on account of friendly relations and have no connection with the seized contraband. Mere telephonic call
