Amjad v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Riya SinghCase Summary

Are call detail records sufficient to conclude the applicant's involvement in drug deals?

Amjad v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC 44043/2022
Before Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Decided on November 16, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Are call detail records sufficient to conclude the applicant’s involvement in drug deals?

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 8, 22, 25, 29)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 (Section 439)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 201, 419, 420, 465)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The police seized 70 kilograms of Mefedron drug from the applicant’s co-accused in Crime Number 01/2021. The applicant has been in custody since May 18, 2022, implicated in the case.
  • The primary evidence against the applicant consists of telephonic records indicating communication with co-accused, with a lack of direct digital evidence like WhatsApp chats.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The applicant’s counsel argued that:
    • The prosecution’s case relies heavily on telephonic records. He emphasised the lack of substantial digital evidence directly linking the applicant to the crime.
    • The applicant has a minimal criminal history. He further pointed out that the applicant’s situation is similar to that of co-accused individuals to whom the court has already granted bail.
  • The respondent’s counsel pointed out the frequent phone contact between the applicant and the co-accused persons, highlighting 377 calls to Abdul Shahid and 333 calls to Tabrez Ali.

Opinion of the Bench

  • Only Call Detail Records (CDRs) were insufficient to establish the applicant’s involvement in drug dealing.

Final Decision

  • The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to conditions.