While granting bail to an accused booked under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Delhi High Court has held that the alleged WhatsApp chats and CDRs are matters to be tested during the course of the trial and these cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the accused’s guilt to deny him the concession of bail.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8, 22 (c), 23(c), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan held, “Similarly, the veracity and evidentiary value of the alleged WhatsApp chats and CDRs are matters to be tested during the course of the trial, as the same are not substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for corroboration. At this stage, the said material cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the petitioner’s guilt to deny him the concession of bail.”

Advocate Akshay Bhandari represented the Petitioner while Senior Standing Counsel Arun Khatri represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Junior Intelligence Officer of the NCB/respondent received information that a parcel lying at a DHL Express shop was suspected to contain a psychotropic substance. A team was constituted, and the said parcel was opened in which 11 lace rolls and 3 pieces of clothes were found. After checking, one lace roll was found to contain 120 strips of Tramadol tablets, and there were 10 tablets in each strip. The remaining lace rolls were examined and led to the discovery of a total of 13200 strips of Tramadol tablets. The contraband was seized. The officials got the information from the owner of the DHL office that the said parcel was booked through a firm, OGS Groups, by one of the accused. He was apprehended, and a second seizure was made at UPS Express Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, from a consignment where recovery of 15000 Zolpidem tablets was made.

Further recovery of 19440 Tramadol tablets was made from 3 packages at Global India Express Pvt. Ltd., Mahipalpur, New Delhi. On initial enquiry, the co-accused allegedly disclosed that his three other associates, namely, the present petitioner and two other co-accused, who were also involved in sending NRx Tablets to USA, had gone to Himachal on tour. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested, and he tendered his voluntary statement under section 67 of the NDPS Act, in which he stated that he was involved in sending the parcel containing psychotropic substances to the co-accused via bus and also provided the address of the consignee on WhatsApp to the co-accused.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the allegations against the petitioner was with regard to his purported involvement in a syndicate engaged in the illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances, namely Tramadol and Zolpidem in commercial quantity, to USA via courier services. The prosecution’s case against the petitioner was primarily anchored on the recovery of 15,000 Zolpidem tablets from UPS Express Pvt. Ltd., which was sought to be linked to him through disclosure statements, a financial transaction of Rs. 80,000, and alleged digital evidence.

The Bench explained that the while considering an application for bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry into the evidence or to conduct a mini-trial. The Court is required to examine the material on record only to form a prima facie opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail, as mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Bench noted that no recovery of any contraband was effected from the personal or conscious possession of the petitioner. The recoveries were made from the premises of third-party i.e. courier companies upon the disclosure statements of the co – accused Ganesh Chaudhary. Regarding the allegation that the petitioner transported the contraband via a bus from Lucknow to Delhi, the Bench noticed that no independent witness, such as the bus driver or conductor, was interrogated or cited to establish this crucial link in the chain of recovery. “The absence of such independent corroboration, at this stage, has the potential of raising doubt about petitioner’s complice”, it added.

With regard to the financial transaction of Rs. 80,000 received from co-accused Mohd. Zahid Khan, the Bench noted that the petitioner had offered an explanation that the same was received for his sister’s wedding. As per the Bench, whether this amount represented the proceeds of crime or was a bona fide family transaction, in the absence of any cogent evidence, again did not establish the petitioner’s complicity in the commission of the offence. Thus, the Bench was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offence. The nominal roll revealed that the petitioner did not have any criminal antecedents. “Therefore, the Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence”, it added.

The Bench thus admitted the petitioner to regular bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and further subject to certain other conditions.

Cause Title: Kashif v. Narcotic Control Bureau (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1195)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Akshay Bhandari, Megha Saroa, Anmol Sachdeva, Kushal Kumar, Janak Raj Ambavat, Moin Khan

Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel Arun Khatri, Advocates Shelly Dixit, Tracy Sebastian, Devender Singh

Click here to read/download Order







Delhi High CourtJustice Vikas Mahajan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.