JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 ("CrPC" for short) for quashment of order dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samba ["trial court", for short], vide which, he came to be charged for offences under Sections 08/15/25/29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ["NDPS Act"]. Alongside, petitioner has also moved an application, in terms of Section 439 CrPC, for his enlargement on bail. Since both the petitions trace their origin to FIR No. 242/2022, thus they are being disposed of by virtue of this common judgment. 2. The case set out by the prosecution, in the trial court, is that on 30.09.2022, Police Station, Samba received a docket from PSI Manish Sharma, Incharge Police Post SIDCO, stating inter alia that while he along with his team of Police Officials was on Nakka duty at around 1200 hours, a Truck bearing Registration No. JK03D-4411, on its way from Kashmir to Punjab, made an attempt to give a slip to the Nakka, however, it was chased and intercepted. The truck was being driven by accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan. On being checked, the aforesaid Truck was found loaded with fruit boxes. However, on further checking it surfaced that 98 fruit boxes contained about 5 to 8 kgs each of poppy straw, which weighed 667.4 Kgs. FIR in question came to be registered and during investigation, samples of the contraband were drawn and forwarded to FSL Jammu for chemical examination and as per the expert opinion, Morphine and Poppy Straw (Plant material and Papaver Somniferum) were detected in the exhibits. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that during investigation, driver of the aforesaid Truck, accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan revealed that contraband in question was loaded in the truck by its main supplier, namely, Shamas ud din Ganie, the petitioner herein. As a result, the investigating agency obtained CDR/SDR of the petitioner and accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan from the concerned Telecom Service Provider along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act from the Nodal Officer of the concerned Telecom Service Provider. As per the CDRs, driver of the Truck, Mohd. Yousuf Khan, from whom aforesaid huge consignment of contraband came to be recovered, was in regular contact with the accused-petitioner and frequent communications between the duo were made through mobile numbers 6006897647 and 8491098458. As per the CDRs, driver of the Truck, Mohd. Yousuf Khan, from whom aforesaid huge consignment of contraband came to be recovered, was in regular contact with the accused-petitioner and frequent communications between the duo were made through mobile numbers 6006897647 and 8491098458. It further surfaced that while Sim number 6006897647 was registered in the name of wife of the petitioner and was being used by him, the other Sim number 8491098458 was found registered in the name of the petitioner. It also came to the fore that location of both the numbers was reflected at Bijbehara from where, as per the statement of accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan, the contraband was loaded in the Truck by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the investigating agency, there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner. 4. Learned trial court relying upon a judgment of learned Delhi High Court in "Prashant Bhaskar vs. State" 2014 (1) JCC 750, passed the impugned order by virtue of which, both the accused persons came to be charged for the aforesaid offences. 5. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order, primarily on the ground that the only evidence available on record against him is his statement and statement of the accused-driver of the truck, recorded by the investigating agency under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, while they were in custody, which being inadmissible in evidence cannot be made basis for framing of charge against him in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"; (2021) 4 SCC 1 . It is contention of the petitioner that except the aforesaid two statements of the petitioner and that of co-accused, Mohd. Yousuf Khan, there is no other evidence which connects the petitioner with the alleged commission of offences and statements recorded by the investigating agency during investigation, under Section 67 of NDPS Act, is hit by the provisions of 25 of the Evidence Act. 6. Both the petitions have been opposed on the other side, primarily on the ground that there is sufficient material on record in the shape of CDR/SDR that petitioner/accused was in regular contact with accused-Mohd. 6. Both the petitions have been opposed on the other side, primarily on the ground that there is sufficient material on record in the shape of CDR/SDR that petitioner/accused was in regular contact with accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan, from whom, consignment of contraband came to be recovered during investigation which is sufficient to indicate that both the accused persons conspired with each other for the commission of offences for which they have been charged with and in view of bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, petitioner is not entitled to the liberty of bail. 7. Having heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the CD file, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances attending the present case as also the legal position governing the field. 8. Mr. M.A. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of petitions and has relied upon Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of India; 2022 (1) CriCC 215, State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.; 2022 (2) Supreme 409 , Amit Ranjan vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Delhi; 2022 (0) Supreme(Del) 376, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India; (2021) 4 CriLR 1791, Aejaz Ismail Sayed vs. Union of India & Anr.; 2021 (0) Supreme (J&K) 202, Phool Chand vs. Narcotics Control Bureau; 2022 (5) JKJ 195 [HC] and Gh. Mohd. Bhat vs. Narcotics Control Bureau through Intelligence Officer; 2022 (4) JKJ 57[HC]. 9. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG has relied upon Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow vs. Md. Nawaz Khan; AIR 2021 SC 4476 , to maintain the stand taken in the objections filed on behalf of the respondent. 10. Uncontroverted facts of the case are that petitioner came to be arrested in the present case on the basis of statement made by accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan, driver of the Truck, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, from whom, the alleged contraband in question came to be recovered and seized by the investigating agency. The petitioner/ accused is also stated to have made a statement during investigation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, whereby he is alleged to have admitted his involvement in the commission of aforesaid offences. Aside, the prosecuting agency seeks to rely upon alleged CDRs of the petitioner and accused Mohd. The petitioner/ accused is also stated to have made a statement during investigation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, whereby he is alleged to have admitted his involvement in the commission of aforesaid offences. Aside, the prosecuting agency seeks to rely upon alleged CDRs of the petitioner and accused Mohd. Yousuf Khan, to establish that they were in regular contact during the occurrence. Admittedly, the contraband in question has been recovered and seized from the aforesaid Truck, which at the relevant time, was being driven by accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan and not from the possession of the petitioner-accused. 11. A Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per the majority decision in Tofan Singh, in a similar fact situation, has ruled that since the officers vested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" in terms of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, therefore, any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provision of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and a statement recorded by them under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can neither use as a confessional statement in the trial nor taken into consideration to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. Relevant excerpt of the judgment for the facility of reference reads as below:- "158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provision of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. 158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act." 12. The aforesaid judgment later came to be followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal, Bharat Chaudhary, Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and by this Court in Phool Chand and Ghulam Ahmad Bhat to reiterate the aforesaid principle of law enunciated in Tofan Singh. 13. It is, however, pertinent to underline that petitioner, in the present case, has been roped in not only on the basis of his statement and statement of accused, Mohd. 13. It is, however, pertinent to underline that petitioner, in the present case, has been roped in not only on the basis of his statement and statement of accused, Mohd. Yousuf Khan under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, but also on the basis of CDRs on the basis of which prosecution seeks to establish regular contact between them during the occurrence. According to the prosecution, since both the accused persons, i.e. accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan and petitioner were in regular contact with each other during the occurrence, it is sufficient to establish that both of them conspired with each other for the supply of contraband in question. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, in a similar fact situation has observed that CDR details of an accused is an aspect that is to be examined during the trial. Relevant observation captured in para 10 of the judgment reads as below:- 10. "It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Dairy No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless. 15. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless. 15. A similar view has been expressed by learned Delhi High Court in Amit Ranjan in the following words:- "It is essential to observe that the aspects of the CDR details and alleged connection between K.K. Pharma Solutions and Vinay Pharmaceuticals and the applicant and the co-accused persons and monetary transactions between them being in relation to illicit trafficking of narcotic or psychotropic substances can only be gauged at trial..................... 16. Identical view has been taken by this Court in Phool Chand and Ghulam Ahmad Bhat that call records of the mobile phone of the accused can be examined during the trial. 17. Facts of Mohd. Nawaz Khan, relied by learned Dy. AG, for the UT are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, bail of the accused came to be cancelled by the Apex Court because it was the respondent/accused, who was found in possession of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, containing commercial quantity of contraband and in addition to it, the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent/ accused indicated that he was in contact with other accused persons who were known to him. The facts and circumstances of Mohd. Nawaz Khan are clearly distinguishable from the facts obtaining the present case because the contraband, in the present case, has been recovered from the Truck which, at the relevant point of time, was in possession of accused-Mohd. Yousuf Khan and not the petitioner and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused. 18. It is trite in law that trial court, at the stage of charge/discharge, must be satisfied with the material placed on record by the investigating agency as to whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence or not. The trial court, thus for the said purpose, is vested with the power to sift the material placed before it for limited purpose to ascertain whether a strong suspicion is founded on the basis of material produced by the investigating agency or not. The trial court, thus is obliged to objectively analyse the said material to form a prima facie opinion that whether accused has committed the offence or not. The trial court, thus is obliged to objectively analyse the said material to form a prima facie opinion that whether accused has committed the offence or not. In the present case, the CDRs obtained by the investigating agency during the course of investigation do give rise a strong suspicion regarding alleged connection or contact of the petitioner with accused Mohd. Yousuf at the time of commission of offence, which prosecution can be called upon to establish during the course of trial. However, since nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused, therefore, in view of principle of law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, petitioner is entitled to bail. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned trial court, whereby petitioner came to be charged for offences under sections 08/15/25/29 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the petition, filed by the petitioner, under section 482 CrPC (CRM(M) No. 990/2023) is dismissed and impugned order is upheld. 20. However, the impugned order dated 10.06.2023, passed by the trial court, whereby bail application of the petitioner came to be dismissed, is set-set aside and petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety bond in the amount of Rs. 1.00 lac to the satisfaction of learned trial court and personal bond of like amount, subject however to the following conditions that:- (i) he shall not jump over bail and tamper the prosecution evidence; (ii) he shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission; (iii) he shall not in any way threaten or coerce the prosecution witnesses; and (iv) he shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing. 21. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly along with connected application(s).