JUDGMENT : RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the state, and pursued the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during trial in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under sections 8/20/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-N.C.B., District- Lucknow, during pendency of trial. 3. As per the prosecution case, the contraband substance i.e., 11 kg of charas is said to be recovered from the possession of the co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR nor in the recovery memo and his name has surfaced in the statement of arrested accused recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 and Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2020) 13 SCC 447 . 6. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history, and he has been in jail since 30.1.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant fleeing after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail application. Further, it has been contended that a detailed Call Detail Record (CDR) has been submitted by the investigating authority connecting the accused to the applicant, and it has been contended that the applicant Munna Ansari was in constant contact with the accused. In support of his submissions, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ratan Mallik, 2009 (2) SCC 624 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 891. The relevant paragraph of Mohit Aggarwal (supra) is quoted hereunder:- "16. In support of his submissions, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ratan Mallik, 2009 (2) SCC 624 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 891. The relevant paragraph of Mohit Aggarwal (supra) is quoted hereunder:- "16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellantNCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh (supra), wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellantNCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. The appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other." 8. Learned AGA has further stated that in view of the embargo contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, this Court is required to record its satisfaction with regard to the twin conditions stipulated therein, the accused/applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as well as the case laws relied upon by them. 10. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as well as the case laws relied upon by them. 10. In the case of Tofan Singh (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by NCB officials will remain inadmissible in evidence. The issue as to whether a statement made by an accused before NCB officials under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence is no longer res integra. 11. As far as the case of Mohit Aggarwal (supra) is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable and would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In Mohit Aggarwal (supra), the name of the co-accused was disclosed during investigation, pursuant to which a raid was conducted at the godown of the said co-accused. The said raid resulted in the recovery and confiscation of a substantial quantity of psychotropic substances, thereby establishing a direct nexus between the accused persons and the contraband in question. The recovery was thus corroborated by material evidence collected during the course of investigation. 12. However, in the present case, although the name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation, no recovery whatsoever has been made from his possession or at his instance. There is no material to show any direct or conscious possession of contraband by the applicant, nor is there any recovery linking him to the alleged offence. In the absence of any such incriminating recovery or material, the ratio laid down in Mohit Aggarwal (supra), which is based on recovery pursuant to disclosure and the existence of tangible evidence, does not apply to the present case. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the statement of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which implicated the present applicant, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining his involvement at this stage. 14. The call detail recording (CDR) gathered by the investigation authority is stated to be the sole evidence that links the applicant to the alleged crime. On the analysis of CDR, it is prima facie evident that the applicant communicated with the co-accused within the time frame. 14. The call detail recording (CDR) gathered by the investigation authority is stated to be the sole evidence that links the applicant to the alleged crime. On the analysis of CDR, it is prima facie evident that the applicant communicated with the co-accused within the time frame. However, mere telephonic contact in absence of any corroborative evidence such as voice recording or recovery from the applicant, is not sufficient at this stage to establish conscious involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. 15. Upon consideration of the material available on record, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is satisfied that (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Thus, the rigours of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act stand duly satisfied in the present case. 16. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the applicant is not named in the FIR or recovery memo; no contraband has been recovered from his possession; his implication is primarily based on inadmissible statement under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act; the applicant has been in jail since 30.1.2025 having no previous criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 17. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed 18. Let the applicant- Munna Ansari involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S. 19. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. 20. For trial expedition, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.