Amjad v. State of Madhya Pradesh
![Are call detail records sufficient to conclude the applicant's involvement in drug deals?](https://cyberblogindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Amjad-v.-State-of-Madhya-Pradesh-865x433.png)
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.