accused Ananda Dhone and the applicant and Mobile CDR and SDR shows the communication between accused and applicant, however the said fact is not sufficient. So far as the communication is concerned, it does not per-se disclose that the communication was in respect of purchase of banned articles only. Admittedly, in the present case applicant is not the person in whose custody the banned articles were found. The name of the present applicant is not appearing in the First Information Report, however, in the remand report it is stated that on the statement made by one of the accused who was apprehended, the name of the present applicant was revealed as the person from whom he has purchased the said banned articles. Further, it is to be noted that on the basis of statement of co-accused, police want to arrest applicant. Statement of the accused to the Police while in custody has no evidentiary value and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. If attendance is directed to be given, the investigation can still go on and as such the Application deserves to be granted. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
