Mere Contact With Other Co-Accused Person Who Was Found In Possession Of Contraband Can’t Be Treated As Corroborative Material: Delhi HC Grants Bail In NDPS Case
The Delhi High Court was considering an application filed by the accused seeking regular bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Delhi High Court granted bail to a man booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and ruled that mere contact with other co accusedwho was found in possession of contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused.
The High Court was considering an application filed by the accused seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 23, 25, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan asserted, “Admittedly no recovery has been affected from the applicant and in such circumstances merely because the applicant was allegedly in touch with the co-accused persons, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted.”
Advocate Sushma Sharma represented the Applicant while SSC Arun Khatri represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
On the basis of secret information, the NCB team seized 50 kg heroin, 47.06 kg suspected narcotic drugs/ psychotropic substances and ₹30 lakh cash and other articles from the house of the accused residing in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar. During the investigation, the accused tendered his voluntary statement thereby admitting to his role in the manufacturing of heroin in one of his godowns taken on rent at Muzaffarnagar.
Based on the disclosure statement of the accused, two Afghan nationals were also apprehended and they admitted that they went to the Muzaffarnagar godown maintained by the accused and processed 200 kgs of heroin. The applicant also admitted that he imported the containers in the name of his friend’s company M/s Filos India Enterprises. After the Trial Court dismissed the bail application, he was arrested.
Arguments
It was the case of the applicant that the applicant ought to be released on the ground of double jeopardy as the applicant was arrested for the sole act of bringing the container to the godown at Muzaffarnagar in two complaint cases filed by the NCB. It was submitted that the applicant could not have been arrested for a single act in two cases.
The Standing Counsel for the NCB argued that the total recovery in the present case was one of commercial quantity, and the complicity of the applicant would be apparent on the consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances.
Reasoning
Noticing that no recovery of any contraband or cash was made from the applicant, the Bench highlighted the fact that the only evidence brought on record by the prosecution was the disclosure statement of the co-accused persons as well as the applicant, and the CDR connectivity between the applicant and the co-accused persons. Referring to the judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), the Bench affirmed that the disclosure statement of the applicant and the other co-accused persons without corroboration is not permissible as evidence. Further, the existence of CDR connectivity does not per se indicate complicity in the commission of crime.
On a perusal of the two complaints, the Bench observed that the applicant had been made accused in both cases for the same act. While the two cases that were registered pertained to two different recoveries; the applicant was made accused and has been in custody in regard to both the cases for the same act of allegedly delivering a container containing contraband in Muzaffarnagar.
“The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth. Mere contact with other co-accused person who was found in possession of contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in the absence of substantive material found against the accused”, the Bench said.
Thus, granting conditional bail to the applicant-accused, the Bench directed him to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Cause Title: Abdul Rab v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:422)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Sushma Sharma
Respondent: SSC Arun Khatri, Advocate Shelly Dixit