Call Details Sans Transcript Of Conversation Between Co-Accused Not Corroborative Without Substantive Material Against Accused: Punjab & Haryana HC

The bench comprising Justice Vikas Bahl disposed of three criminal miscellaneous applications filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C for grant of regular bail in FIR registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The court was dealing with a case where the three criminal miscellaneous applications were filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C for grant of regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 21 and 22/ 22-61-85 of NDPS Act, 1985.

It is the case of the petitioners that the statement made before the Police is inadmissible in evidence. It is further contended that the petitioners have been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused and no recovery has been made from the petitioners subsequent to the disclosure.

On the other hand, the State Counsel has opposed the petition for regular bail by relying on call details of conversations exchanged between the three petitioners and the two co-accused from whom the recovery has been effected.

After considering rival submissions of the parties, the court held that nothing has been recovered from the petitioners and they are sought to be implicated solely on the disclosure statement by the co-accused.

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 Ravdeep Singh @ Sheru and even after the petitioners were arrayed as accused in pursuance of the disclosure statements, no recovery had been made from the petitioners.

Considering the fact that all the three petitioners have been in custody since 06.11.2020, 05.12.2020, and 23.04.2021 and also the fact that challan has already been presented, the court concluded that one out of 32 witnesses has been examined, and thus, the trial is likely to take time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic.

With respect to the call details, the court held that no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the co-accused to the petitioners have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations is not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

The court relied on the judgment of the Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sandeep and Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah v. State of Gujarat and held that mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material.

A perusal of the above judgment would show that without the transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. In the present case, there is no other material against the petitioners.

For the reasons discussed above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case along with the law laid down in the judgments discussed, the court allowed the present petitions and ordered the petitioners to be released on bail.

Case Title : Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 71

Click Here To Read/Download Order