Records (C.D.R.) indicate that the applicant and co-accused Neeraj were in regular communication. 6. In response, learned counsel for the applicant emphasizes that the last telephonic communication between the applicant and Neeraj occurred on 6th February, whereas Neeraj was arrested on 12th February, i.e., six days after the last call. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271, wherein it was held that a statement of one accused cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence to convict another. Such a statement may, at best, serve as corroborative assurance, but cannot form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of independent evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no credible evidence directly implicating the applicant. For establishing culpability, there must be proximate and corroborative evidence, such as a money trail or telephonic communication close to the time of arrest, which is absent in the present case. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant was not apprehended in possession of the alleged contraband and that his arrest is solely based on the confessional statement of co-accused Neeraj. There is no independent evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offence, the last communication with the co-accused occurred six days prior to Neeraj’s arrest, and no financial or material link has been established. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
