India, Sept. 6 -- Shivangi Vashisht shivangi.vashisht@hindustantimes.com Chandigarh: A Special Court in Chandigarh has acquitted Ashutosh Sodha in a 2019 case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observing that serious doubts and contradictions in the prosecution's version made it unsafe to hold that he was in conscious possession of the alleged contraband. Special Judge Raman Goklaney, in an order pronounced on July 1, held that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Sodha was apprehended with the contraband at the time and place alleged by the police. According to the prosecution, Sodha was apprehended at around 9.10 pm on July 30, 2019, near the Sector 39-C/D dividing road, while he was allegedly carrying a white bag. The police claimed to have recovered injections containing Buprenorphine and Pheniramine Maleate from him. He was subsequently charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The defence, however, disputed the entire sequence of events and claimed that Sodha had been picked up by the police much earlier in the afternoon. The defence relied on telephone records and cell tower locations to challenge the prosecution's timeline. The court noted that the accused's phone was shown in the Sector 39 area during the afternoon and that a call was made by him to his mother at about 4.47 pm. A recording of the conversation was also produced, in which he told her that he was at the Sector 39 police station and asked her to come there. His mother's phone was subsequently located in the same area at around 5.33 pm. The court also considered photographs of Sodha's damaged car lying at the Sector 39 police station. The prosecution case did not explain the presence of the vehicle there, as its version was that Sodha had been apprehended on foot at the alleged spot at 9.10 pm. Several police witnesses gave evasive responses when questioned about the photographs. The court observed that this strengthened the defence argument that Sodha and his vehicle had been taken to the police station before the alleged recovery. The court further flagged the non-production of Sodha's medical examination record. Although police witnesses stated that he had sustained an injury during his apprehension, the medical record was not placed before the court. The judge also noted that the MLR available in the police file did not record any injury, creating further doubt over the prosecution's version. The alleged recovery was also questioned because no independent witness from a nearby petrol pump was associated and its CCTV footage was not obtained. Further, prosecution witnesses differed on whether the contraband had been recovered from a white bag or directly from Sodha's hand. The court also found procedural lapses concerning the inventory of the seized material under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the foundational facts of the alleged recovery, t NDPS Act. His bail and surety b. He was, however, directed to furnish a fresh personal bail bond of Rs.50,000 for six months in case the State challenges the acquittal....