and to connect the present petitioner to the alleged recovery. Efforts have also been made to connect the petitioner with the principal-accused on the strength of some calls exchanged in between them. However, no connecting evidence has been produced so as to add direct nexus between the petitioner and other persons from whom the contraband was recovered. A bare perusal of the CDR reveals that there was no telephonic communication between the present petitioner and the principal accused on the day of incident as well as during the days immediately preceding the day of incident. In the case at hand, nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner and no other legally admissible evidence that could connect the petitioner to the crime or to the other co-accused persons for that matter has come to the fore, thus, the disclosure statement of the coaccused in police custody on the basis of which the present petitioner has been made an accused in this case remains just illusory knowledge and does not become a fact proved as no fact has been discovered in consequence of the information disclosed by the co-accused, thus, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused can be roped in for commission of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
