#call detail records

Bombay High Court rules that Call Detail Records (CDR) without corroborative evidence cannot satisfy the Section 37 NDPS Act twin-test for bail denial. The judgment underscores that mere telephonic contact does not establish guilt, setting a precedent for bail jurisprudence in NDPS cases.

Rajasthan High Court rules that mere call detail records, without corroborative evidence or reliable witness testimony, cannot establish guilt for bail denial under Section 302 IPC. The court emphasized that hostile witnesses and lack of direct evidence undermine the prosecution's case, mandating bail.

MP High Court rules that call detail records and financial transactions provide sufficient grounds to distinguish an accused from co-accused, justifying bail denial under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The ruling underscores the weight of digital evidence in cyber fraud cases, even where parity claims are raised.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that call records, without substantive evidence, cannot sustain a criminal conspiracy charge under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against a DSP, emphasizing the need for concrete proof beyond mere communication logs to establish conspiracy.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that electronic evidence, including call detail records, is inadmissible without a valid Section 65-B certificate. This ruling overturned a conviction reliant solely on circumstantial evidence, setting a strict precedent for the admissibility of digital records in criminal trials.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds accused may summon call detail records at defence stage under BNSS Section 256(3), affirming right to fair trial under Article 21.

Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that mere financial transactions and call detail records cannot establish prima facie guilt under NDPS Act; bail granted where no direct evidence links accused to drug trafficking.