The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has held that mere Call Detail Records (“CDRs”) showing contact between an accused and a co-accused are not sufficient to establish a nexus with drug trafficking, particularly in the absence of voice recordings or transcripts of the conversations. The Court further held that where no contraband is recovered from the accused and the only evidence against him consists of disclosure statements of co-accused and phone call logs, the stringent rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) are not attracted. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Chowdhary while allowing a bail application filed by the Petitioner, Abdul Rashid Kohli, who had been in custody for nearly three years without any recovery of contraband from his person.
The prosecution case arose from FIR No. 17/2023 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Srinagar, under Sections 8/21, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On April 6, 2023, police received credible information that two persons — Accused Nos. 1 and 2 — residing in rented accommodation at Kursoo Bund, Rajbagh, were dealing in contraband substances procured from Karnah and transported to Srinagar for sale. Upon search of the said accommodation, 11 packets of heroin weighing 1 kilogram each, totalling 11 kilograms, along with Indian currency of Rs. 11,82,500/-, were recovered from under a bed. During the course of further investigation, Accused No. 1 made a voluntary disclosure before a Magistrate naming the Petitioner, along with others, as a co-conspirator who had entered into a criminal conspiracy to procure heroin from an individual based in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and transport it to Srinagar. Accused No. 2 made a similar disclosure. On the basis of these disclosures, the Petitioner was arrested and subsequently charge-sheeted on October 12, 2023, for offences under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, with the accusation that he had abetted the main accused, shared his location with them through his mobile phone around the time of seizure, and was in touch with them through WhatsApp regarding the narcotics. The Trial Court rejected the Petitioner’s bail application on August 5, 2025, holding that the case involved cross-border smuggling and that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been satisfied, observing that negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception. The Petitioner then approached the High Court.
On the question of the applicable law, the Court noted that the Petitioner had been charged primarily under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which punishes abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit offences under the Act. The Court held that Section 29 of the NDPS Act is almost pari materia in spirit to Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore the Petitioner’s contention that he had not been charged under Section 120-B IPC was of no avail.
Turning to the evidence against the Petitioner, the Court found that no commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from him at any point. The entire case against him rested on two categories of evidence — the voluntary disclosure statements made by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the CDRs showing calls made by the Petitioner to the co-accused along with sharing of his location around the time of seizure. The Court examined this evidence critically and held that “without any other evidence from CDRs showing contact between an accused and a co-accused are not sufficient to establish a nexus with drug trafficking, especially without voice recording or transcripts of the conversation. As per the Prosecution Story, there is neither any recording nor any transcript of the conversation on the file, as such, call logs alone cannot prove a criminal conspiracy of sale or transportation of drugs.”
On the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act — which imposes stringent conditions on bail for offences involving commercial quantity, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — the Court held that this provision was not attracted in the case of the Petitioner. Placing reliance upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592), wherein it was held that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible and that phone records alone fail to meet the reasonable ground test under Section 37, the Court concluded that the rigors of Section 37 were inapplicable to the Petitioner’s case. The Court also relied upon the Delhi High Court’s decision in Vinay Dua v. State Government of NCT of Delhi (Bail Application No. 900/2025), which held that mere WhatsApp chats and phone calls with co-accused are not enough to deny bail under the NDPS Act.
The Court accordingly held that “the accused-Petitioner is entitled to be granted bail, in that, the test of reasonable grounds to deny bail as per the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner herein.” The bail application was allowed and the Petitioner was admitted to bail subject to conditions including furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with surety, surrender of passport, providing his mobile number to the SHO, sharing daily Google pin location with the SHO, and refraining from contacting or influencing prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence. The Court clarified that all observations and findings in the judgment were restricted solely to the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Cause Title: Abdul Rashid Kohli v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Case No.: Bail Application No. 194/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Chowdhary
Date of Decision: April 29, 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 