P&H High Court Quashes Section 27A NDPS Charge; Says Mere ₹1000 Recovery Cannot Prove Illicit-Traffic Financing

Case Name: Sukhchain Masih @ Lalla vs. State of Punjab & Amit Sharma @ Veeru vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-54246-2025 & CRM-M-52685-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the prosecution wrongly invoked Section 27A NDPS Act in both FIRs. The Court ruled that ₹1000 in cash, recovered alongside small-quantity heroin, could not prove “financing illicit traffic,” “harbouring offenders,” or any organised support to drug operations. It held that the investigators added Section 27A mechanically, without any material linking the money to drug supply chains. The Court clarified that Section 27A is reserved for grave conduct involving structured trafficking, financing, or harbouring, not for routine small-recovery cases. It held that when Section 27A is unsustainable, the Section 37 NDPS restrictions automatically fall away, making anticipatory bail and regular bail available on ordinary parameters. The Court found that neither disclosure statements nor recovery memos created any factual basis for invoking Section 27A.

Summary: In FIR No. 37/2025, the police recovered 5g heroin from a co-accused. His disclosure named Sukhchain Masih as the person from whom he allegedly bought the substance. No recovery was made from Sukhchain. In FIR No. 99/2025, the police recovered 21g heroin and ₹1000 from Amit Sharma. Both FIRs added Section 27A despite the absence of evidence of financing or operational support. The petitioners argued that investigators frequently add Section 27A to block bail by triggering Section 37. They submitted that the cash recovered was ordinary personal money, not drug proceeds. The prosecution relied only on disclosure statements and the simultaneous presence of cash and heroin. The Court analysed Section 27A in detail and held that the statute does not recognise the generic concept of “drug money.” It emphasised that prosecution must produce evidence linking the currency to organised trafficking or financing. The Court noted that investigators cannot convert a routine NDPS case into an “illicit-traffic” case without legal foundation. It referred to earlier judgments cautioning against casual use of Section 27A and reaffirmed that disclosure statements have limited value without corroboration. It also held that recovery of small quantities does not justify invoking the strictest provisions of the Act. The Court ruled that both cases involved routine personal-use level or low-supply allegations, with no sign of syndicate, structured financing, or operational support.

Decision: Both petitions were allowed. The Court quashed the Section 27A charge in both FIRs. It made the interim bail orders absolute. It held that Section 37 restrictions did not apply and that investigators must avoid using Section 27A without factual basis. All pending applications were disposed of.