Mere Call Records Without Voice Recordings May Not Be Sufficient For Conviction U/S 27-A Of NDPS Act: J&K High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Drug Supplier

While allowing his bail plea Justice Dhar opined that call detail records (CDR) showing contact between the petitioner and a co-accused, without any voice recordings of their conversations, may not be sufficient to convict the petitioner under Section 27-A of the Act. However, the Court acknowledged that such evidence does raise suspicion regarding the petitioner's involvement in the alleged crime.

The case stemmed from a FIR under Sections 8/21/22/25/27-A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. On March 30, 2023, police intercepted a Tata Nexon car carrying Harpreet Singh and Ranjeet Singh, who were allegedly transporting heroin and cash worth Rs. 16,71,520/- collected from another accused, Yaqoob Ali.

During interrogation, the duo claimed they worked under petitioner Yugraj Singh, described as the "kingpin" of the drug smuggling network operating between Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir.

Yugraj Singh was arrested on June 8, 2023, and charged under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act (financing illicit trafficking). His bail plea was earlier rejected by the trial court, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Justice Dhar meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal provisions before granting bail. Spotlighting the Inadmissibility of disclosure statements the court noted that the prosecution heavily relied on the disclosure statements of the co-accused and Yugraj Singh himself, recorded while in police custody.

However, citing Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the court held that confessions made to police officers without the presence of a magistrate are inadmissible. Further, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, such statements are only admissible if they lead to the discovery of new facts which was not the case here, the court reasoned.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), which held that confessional statements before police officers cannot be used against co-accused. Additionally, it relied on Rayees Ahmad Dar vs. UT of J&K (2022), where the High Court had ruled that custodial statements before police are inadmissible.

While the prosecution presented Call Detail Records (CDRs) to establish contact between Yugraj Singh and the co-accused, the court observed that mere call records, without voice recordings or substantive proof of incriminating conversations, were insufficient to prove guilt under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act.

Dealing with the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has been involved in similar offences in the previous past and that he has been indulging in trafficking of illicit drugs, the court pointed that no details in this regard have been furnished by the respondents.

“Though it has been alleged that the petitioner has been indulging in trafficking of illicit drugs, yet no details in this regard have been furnished by the respondents. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, is likely to commit any offence while on bail”

It further added,

“Apart from this co-accused, Yaqoob Ali has already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail”

In view of these observations the court admitted the petitioner on bail after imposing certain conditions.

Case Title: Yugraj Singh Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 126

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment