Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail Amidst Concerns Over Misuse of Section 27-A NDPS Act

Court emphasizes need for concrete evidence when invoking Section 27-A, criticizes misuse to obstruct bail

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Anoop Chitkara, has granted bail to petitioners Sukhchain Masih alias Lalla and Amit Sharma alias Veeru, in cases concerning alleged drug trafficking activities. The judgment, delivered on November 14, 2025, underscores the requirement for concrete evidence when invoking Section 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which pertains to financing illicit drug trafficking and harboring offenders.

Both petitioners had been implicated in separate First Information Reports (FIRs) under the NDPS Act. Sukhchain Masih was accused based on a co-accused's disclosure of selling heroin, while Amit Sharma faced charges after being found with 21 grams of heroin and INR 1000, alleged as drug money. The court noted that mere possession of currency alongside contraband does not constitute evidence of financing illicit traffic, as required under Section 27-A.

Justice Chitkara highlighted the legislative intent behind Section 27-A, cautioning against its capricious invocation merely to impose the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that procedural fairness mandates credible evidence establishing a clear nexus between seized currency and illicit trafficking activities. The judgment criticized the investigating agencies for failing to provide substantial evidence linking the seized money to illicit drug financing.

The court further elaborated that while possession of narcotics constitutes an offence under the NDPS Act, possession of legal tender currency does not inherently implicate one in illegal activities. It stressed the necessity for the prosecution to prove that the money was derived from or intended for illicit drug trafficking before invoking Section 27-A.

The judgment also referenced multiple precedents, including Supreme Court rulings, reinforcing the principle that the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act requires prior establishment of an actus reus related to narcotic offences. Without credible evidence of financing or harboring activities, the court determined that the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 do not apply.

In conclusion, the interim bail orders previously granted to both petitioners were made absolute, with the court directing the investigating agencies to adhere to procedural fairness and evidentiary standards in future cases. The ruling is expected to have significant implications for the application of Section 27-A, ensuring that its invocation is grounded in substantive evidence rather than mere procedural tactics.

Bottom Line:

Section 27-A of NDPS Act - Invoking Section 27-A requires concrete evidence of financing illicit traffic or harboring offenders and cannot be based solely on possession of currency or disclosure statements.

Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 27A, 37, 35, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 482.

Sukhchain Masih @ Lalla v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2808616