The High Court of Delhi has granted regular bail to a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The Court ruled that the prosecution’s case could not stand solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and Call Detail Records (CDR) when the context of the telephonic conversations remains unclear and uncorroborated.
The judgment was pronounced by Justice Saurabh Banerjee on an application filed under Sections 483 read with 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from FIR No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri, Delhi, under Sections 21/25 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, a raid was conducted on January 6, 2025, at the residence of one Sajid @ Rafikul following secret information that he was engaged in the sale and supply of heroin/smack.
During the raid, the police recovered approximately 197.17 grams of heroin/smack and Rs. 1,24,510. Following his apprehension, Sajid disclosed that he had procured the contraband from the applicant, Nazma, and another co-accused, Sahil.
Sahil was subsequently arrested on January 7, 2025, and identified Nazma’s residence. During the investigation, an analysis of the Call Detail Records (CDR) revealed 78 telephonic contacts between Sahil and Nazma between November 1, 2024, and January 5, 2025. After Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against Nazma on February 14, 2025, she was declared a proclaimed offender and eventually arrested on June 11, 2025.
Arguments by the Parties
Applicant’s Submissions: Counsel for the applicant, Nazma, argued that her arrest was based solely on the custodial disclosure statement of the co-accused, which carries no evidentiary weight at this stage. Furthermore, the defense contended that the CDR merely established telephonic communication between the applicant and the co-accused, without revealing any context, purpose, or incriminating act that would prove her involvement in the illegal trade.
The applicant also submitted that she never received notices to join the investigation because they were sent to her matrimonial home, where she ceased to reside following the death of her husband. Additionally, it was brought to the Court’s attention that Nazma is a single mother and the sole caretaker of her minor children, one of whom is suffering from a brain tumor.
State’s Submissions: The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State strongly opposed the bail application. The State argued that the applicant is a habitual offender, citing her involvement in another NDPS case (FIR No. 178/2021, PS Bhalaswa Diary), and expressed apprehension that she might commit further similar offenses if released on bail.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR, no specific role was attributed to her, she was not apprehended at the spot, and no recovery of contraband was effected from her possession.
The Court noted that the entire prosecution case against the applicant was founded upon the disclosure statement of a co-accused. Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1], the High Court observed that such a statement “per se is not admissible without there being any corroboration.”
Furthermore, addressing the reliance on the Call Detail Records, the Court observed that “when the purpose or context of communication existing in the CDR is shrouded in mystery, the same is a ground for granting bail to the applicant.” The Court held that interpreting the context of these communications is a matter to be examined at the stage of the trial.
The Decision
The High Court allowed the application and granted regular bail to the applicant, Nazma, subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.
The Court imposed several strict conditions, including:
- The applicant must not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the Court.
- She must surrender her passport to the Investigating Officer (IO) or file an affidavit if she does not possess one.
- She must appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing.
- She must provide her working mobile numbers to the IO and keep her mobile location on at all times.
- She must report to the IO at PS Jahangir Puri in the first week of every month.
- She shall not indulge in any criminal activity, tamper with evidence, or contact prosecution witnesses.
- Case Title: Nazma vs. State of NCT of Delhi
- Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 4335/2025
