Mere recovery of drugs not proof of financing illicit traffic: HC
20/08/2025
JAMMU, Aug 19: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that mere recovery of contraband from an accused cannot establish the offence of financing illicit traffic under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, while granting bail to a Samba resident arrested in a narcotics case.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri delivered the judgment while hearing three connected petitions arising from FIR No. 99/2024 of Police Station Vijaypur, in which police had intercepted a Swift car and recovered 16.82 grams of heroin, cash of ?6.13 lakh and a weighing machine from its driver, Mohd. Aslam. The trial court had earlier framed charges under Sections 22 and 27-A of the NDPS Act and declined bail to the accused.
Observing that Section 27-A prescribes stringent punishment of 10-20 years for financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders, the Court said that such a charge could not be invoked unless there was clear evidence of continuity, regularity or financial support in drug trafficking. "A solitary transaction or mere possession of narcotics does not amount to financing trafficking. Mere recovery of drugs cannot automatically qualify as proof of financing illicit traffic," the Court observed.
Since the heroin recovered fell in the intermediate quantity category, the Court also held that Section 37 NDPS Act, which applies to commercial quantity, was not attracted. Accordingly, the accused was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond of ?1 lakh and subject to strict conditions, including regular attendance before trial court.
In a related petition, the Court also directed release of the seized vehicle (Swift car JK09P/1912) to its registered owner Hassan Din, noting that he was not involved in the offence and that the trial court had wrongly refused interim custody. The car has been ordered to be released on superdnama with restrictions on its disposal until conclusion of the trial.
The Court emphasized that while drug trafficking remains a grave menace, courts must distinguish between mere possession and financial backing of illicit trade, and Section 27-A should be invoked only where substantial evidence exists.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|