67 of the NDPS Act. By referring to the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in [2021] 4 SCC 1, he has submitted that such statement recorded under Section 67, NDPS Act is hit by Section 25, Evidence Act, 1872 and, thus, is not admissible. He has, thus, submitted that, if such statement under Section 67, NDPS Act is kept aside then there is no other incriminating material against the accused-petitioner to keep him in custody. The only other material is seizure of contraband substance from the possession of the coaccused, Md. Abdul Salam, admittedly made in presence of the accusedpetitioner who was sitting around the same table in the restaurant, Naga Kitchen. Thus, it is clear that the contraband substances were not in conscious possession of the accused-petitioner. Mr. Kataki has further contended that the investigating authority has sought to press home the case against the accusedpetitioner on the concept of joint possession. It is his submission that in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be a case of joint possession. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the decision in Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in [2015] 6 SCC 222. It is his further contention that the call record details [CDRs] do not go to indicate that the accusedpetitioner had conspired with the other accused persons. That apart, the Certificate given under Section 65B[4][c] of the Evidence Act, 1872 which has been produced to establish link of the accused-petitioner with the other coaccused do not fulfil the conditions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. He has, thus, contended that considering the prolonged detention of the accusedpetitioner since 04.01.2021; the fact that there is no incriminating material available against the accused-petitioner; and that the trial of the case has not progressed satisfactorily till date, the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. On the aspect of CDRs, Mr. Kataki has referred to the decision
