Delhi HC grants bail to accused in NDPS case, directs retrieval of call details

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to the accused arrested in an FIR lodged three years ago for recovery of a huge quantity of ganja (cannabis) by Crime Branch, Delhi Police.

The Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait while granted bail to accused Pradeep Kr Gupta on January 15 also stated: "I am conscious of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In view of afore-noted facts and circumstances, I find that there is some fishy about the whole chain of events and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that petitioner deserves bail."

Appearing on behalf of accused Advocate Sunil Dalal submitted that the accused was picked up on October 11, 2017 from Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh by police party and has been falsely implicated by showing alleged recovery on the next day at Delhi.

He further contended that the accused had submitted two phone numbers of the police party, which had arrested him to show his presence at Aligarh with police party a day before arrest in Delhi.

Advocate Dalal further submitted that the trial court had directed in September 2018 to preserve the call detail record (CDRs) and call details of those number on an application moved by the accused.

However, the order of the trial court was deliberately not communicated to service provider i.e. Vodafone/Idea in order to conceal the factum of arrest of the accused on a day prior to the lodging of FIR.

He further submitted that even the report filed by Vodafone mentioned that one mobile number belonged to a member of the police party.

The counsel on behalf of service provider submitted that the Company was not at fault because trial court's directions to preserve data were never communicated to it and it's extremely cumbersome to retrieve CDRs and call details after 1 year.

Taking a serious view of the peculiar facts, Justice Suresh Kait noted that something appears to be "fishy" in the present case in as much as how and why the directions of trial courts were not communicated to preserve the CDRs and locations of mobile numbers given by the accused.

The court granted bail to the accused on furnishing a bail bond for Rs 25,000 with a surety. It also directed the service provider to retrieve the CDRs and locations of the mobile numbers.

( With inputs from ANI )