Clarifying that Section 27A targets ongoing financial support and harbouring, not one-off transactions; upholding charge-framing scrutiny principles; and affirming trial courts’ power to release NDPS-seized vehicles under BNSS/CrPC before conclusion of confiscation proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
Bail App/297/2024 of MOHD ASLAM Vs UT OF J AND K TH SHO POLICE STATION VIJAYPUR CNR JKHC020064982024 |
| Date of Registration | 11-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on trial courts and special NDPS courts in J&K & Ladakh; persuasive for other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on charge-framing and NDPS vehicle custody; clarifies scope of Section 27A |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (NDPS Act; inherent jurisdiction under BNSS/CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that Section 27A applies only to those who provide ongoing financial support for illicit drug-trafficking activities or harbour offenders, not to a one-off sale or purchase; trial courts must sift and weigh prosecution material before framing charges rather than accept it as gospel truth; and under BNSS/CrPC provisions (Sections 497/503), special courts retain jurisdiction to release vehicles seized under the NDPS Act pending final confiscation orders. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A vehicle (JK09P/1912) was intercepted at a Vijaypur naka; 16.82 g of heroin was recovered from driver Aslam’s pocket and ₹6.13 lakhs plus a weighing machine from the dashboard. Investigation revealed Aslam was collecting payment for a prior consignment. He was charged under Sections 22 and 27A NDPS Act; the owner Hassan Din applied for interim vehicle release. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Trial courts and NDPS special courts in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, special NDPS courts across India, and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Sale/purchase vs. financing under Section 27A; one-off transaction does not constitute illicit traffic financing |
| Follows | Prafulla Kumar Samal; Chitresh Kumar Chopra; Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam; Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai; Sainaba v. State of Kerala |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 27A NDPS Act targets ongoing financing or harbouring, not a single sale or purchase of narcotics.
- Reaffirms that framing of charge requires courts to sift and weigh prosecution material, and not accept allegations as gospel truth.
- Holds that intermediate-quantity heroin (16.82 g) bail applications cannot be refused merely on Section 37 NDPS ground; emphasises right to speedy trial.
- Confirms trial courts’ inherent jurisdiction under BNSS (Sections 497/503) and Section 51 NDPS Act to grant interim custody of vehicles seized in NDPS cases before confiscation proceedings conclude, subject to conditions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Charge-framing is a judicial discretion requiring evaluation of prosecution’s final report; trial courts cannot undertake a mini-trial but must ensure essential ingredients of offence are prima facie made out (Prafulla Kumar; Chitresh Kumar).
- Section 27A punishes “financing” illicit traffic and “harbouring” offenders; “illicit traffic” is defined in Section 2(viiib), and financing implies providing funds beyond mere sale consideration.
- Dictionary meanings (Black’s Law, Chambers, Oxford) distinguish financing (provision of money to sustain ongoing activity) from sale/purchase transactions.
- A solitary transaction of heroin sale (intermediate quantity) lacks continuity and regularity to constitute drug-trafficking financing (Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh).
- Sections 60(3) and 63 NDPS Act envisage post-trial confiscation with hearing; no specific bar exists on interim release of seized conveyance. Section 51 NDPS Act incorporates CrPC provisions (BNSS 497/503) on custody and disposal of property.
- Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey and Sainaba endorsed special courts’ discretion to release vehicles used in NDPS offences pending trial, subject to safeguards.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner – Mohd. Aslam
- Section 27A charge unsustainable: no allegation of financing or harbouring; mere sale not within ambit.
- Trial court accepted prosecution narrative without scrutiny, vitiating charge.
- Intermediate quantity heroin: Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted; entitled to bail after over a year’s custody under Article 21.
Petitioner – Hassan Din (owner of vehicle)
- Vehicle financed by bank; not purchased from drug proceeds.
- No drugs or paraphernalia recovered from owner or vehicle; no knowledge or connivance.
- Trial court lacked jurisdiction: no formal confiscation order by competent authority under Chapter V(A).
Respondent – Union Territory of J&K
- Gravity and seriousness of NDPS charges; interference under inherent jurisdiction must be sparingly exercised.
- Vehicle subject to NDPS confiscation regime; interim release would undermine statutory scheme.
Factual Background
A police nakabandh at 17 Miles, Vijaypur intercepted car JK09P/1912 driven by Mohd. Aslam. On search, 16.82 g heroin was recovered from Aslam’s pockets, and ₹6.13 lakhs plus an electronic weighing machine from the dashboard. Investigation revealed Aslam was collecting payment for a prior heroin consignment. He was charged under Sections 22 and 27A NDPS Act, and his bail plea was rejected. Registered owner Hassan Din’s application for interim release of the vehicle was also dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 27A NDPS Act: Punishes financing (direct/indirect) of illicit traffic (Section 2(viiib)(i)–(v)) and harbouring offenders; minimum 10 years RI and fine.
- Section 2(viiib): Defines “illicit traffic” (cultivation; production; sale; purchase; transport; other dealings; premises letting).
- Sections 60(3) & 63: Conveyance used for NDPS offences liable to confiscation post-trial after hearing owner’s defence.
- Sections 68E–68I: Seizure/enquiry by police; show-cause by competent authority; forfeiture procedure.
- Section 51 NDPS Act: Applies CrPC provisions (arrest, search, seizure, property custody) unless inconsistent.
- BNSS Sections 497/503 (CrPC 451/457 analogues): Custody and interim release of property pending trial.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were expressed.
Procedural Innovations
- Application of BNSS Sections 497/503 for interim release of NDPS-seized conveyances clarified.
- Restates inherent jurisdiction of special NDPS courts to balance property rights pending statutory confiscation proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms and applies Supreme Court precedents on charge framing and vehicle interim custody.
Citations
- (1979) 3 SCC 4 (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal)
- (2009) 16 SCC 605 (Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi))
- (2021) SCC 315 (Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra)
- (2022) SCC Online SC 828 (State of W.B. v. Rakesh Singh)
- AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 1252 (Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India)
- (2002) 10 SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat)
- 2023 (1) RCR (Cr) 869 (Sainaba v. State of Kerala)
- (2025) SCC Online SC 40 (Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam)
- CNR JKHC020064982024; CRM(M) No. 157/2025; Bail App No. 297/2024; WP(Crl) No. 87/2024