The insufficiency of call details as corroborative evidence without transcripts of conversations and the lack of recovery from the accused were central to the court's decision.

ORDER

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - The present order will dispose of three criminal miscellaneous applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 160 dated 18.09.2020 registered under Sections 21 and 22/ 22-61-85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Division No. 1, District Pathankot.

2. The first Criminal Misc. Application CRM-M-39657 of 2020 is filed by Vikrant Singh. The second CRM-M-28448 of 2021 is filed by Subash Chander @ Bittu. The third application CRM-M-26760 of 2021 is filed by Davinder Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that CRM-M-39657 of 2020 may be taken as the lead case. Thus, the facts are being taken for consideration from the said case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2021(1) RCR {Criminal) 1. and order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled "Mew a Singh Vs. State of Punjab", to contend that the statement made before the Police is inadmissible in evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in the present case, no recovery has been made from the petitioners. It is submitted that the alleged recovery has been made from two persons i.e. Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of both the co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and has submitted that even subsequent to the disclosure statement, no recovery has been effected from the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other case and they are in custody since 06.11.2020 (Vikrant Singh), 05.12.2020 (Subash Chander)and 23.04.2021 (Davinder Singh) and in the present case, investigation is complete and the challan has been presented. There are 32 witnesses, out of which, one witness has been partially examined and, thus, the trial is likely to take time.

6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that there are call details of conversations exchanged between the three petitioners and the two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru, from whom the recovery has been effected.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal have submitted that as per the affidavit and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, there are no details as to on what date, the alleged calls had been exchanged and at any rate, there is no transcript of the said call details and have relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in CRM-A-1065-MA of 2016 - Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Sandeep, decided on 01.08.2018 as well as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in Yash Javeshbhai Champaklal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat. 2022 SCC Online Gui 271, to contend that where there are no recordings of conversations exchanged between the accused, then the same cannot be treated as corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudharv Vs. Union of India - 2021 SCC Online SC 1235, to argue that reliance placed on Whatsapp messages cannot be treated as sufficient material to establish a live link between the accused in the case when most of the scientific reports with respect to the said evidence are still awaited.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from the petitioners and the alleged recovery has been effected from two co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru. The petitioners are sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused Rakesh Sharma and Rav