29. Mere lapse of time in transmission, absent any indication of tampering or break in the chain, does not by itself create reasonable doubt at the stage of bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that at the bail stage in commercial quantity cases, the Court is primarily concerned with whether the statutory conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act can be said to be satisfied on the material placed, and not with an exhaustive evaluation of every evidentiary contention. In the present case, the seizure of commercial quantity from the applicant, the compliance of Section 50, the sealed forwarding of samples and the positive FSL report, cumulatively, create a prima facie case, not satisfying the rigour of Section 37. 30. The argument that the prosecution case is founded only on disclosure statements and CDR analysis is also contrary to the record. The reliance upon Tofan Singh (Supra) , to contend that disclosure statements are inadmissible, is misplaced at this stage. The prosecution case is not founded solely on a disclosure or confession but upon the recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin from the person of the applicant. The admissibility of disclosures and the corroborative value of call detail records are matters for trial. At the stage of bail in a commercial quantity case, the Court does not conduct a mini-trial or weigh the probative value of each circumstance, rather, it only examines whether the material on record enables satisfaction of the twin requirements under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The recovery from the applicant’s possession, supported by the FSL report, stands on an independent footing.
