Chandigarh, October 8: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has cautioned authorities against the misuse of the term “drug money” to invoke stringent bail restrictions under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving small cash recoveries.
Granting regular bail to an accused in a case registered at Chheharta police station, Amritsar, Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that petty amounts seized from drug suspects cannot automatically be treated as proceeds of drug trafficking. The accused, allegedly in possession of 150 grams of heroin, was found with Rs 2,500 in a polythene bag at the time of arrest.
Justice Chitkara noted: “There has been a trend observed where even petty amounts recovered from the accused are labelled as drug money. No explanation is provided for how such petty amounts, which could be for personal expenses or travel, are considered drug money.”
The Bench clarified that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which deals with commercial quantities and prescribes strict bail restrictions, were not applicable given the quantity involved. Likewise, Section 27A — which punishes financing or aiding the trafficking of narcotics with a minimum 10-year sentence — cannot be invoked without prima facie evidence of financing or harbouring offenders.
“At the stage of invocation of Section 27A, there was no prima facie evidence of financing, directly or indirectly. Thus, the rigors of Section 37 shall also not attract,” Justice Chitkara said. He added that the police had no evidence to label the Rs 2,500 as drug money and had invoked Section 27A primarily to trigger legislative bail restrictions.
The judgment highlights the importance of proportionality in bail decisions. “Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative,” the Bench observed. The court noted that under-trials cannot be kept in indefinite custody in the absence of solid evidence linking them to financing or aiding drug offences.
Considering the petitioner’s pre-trial custody, the weight of the drugs, and other factors peculiar to the case, Justice Chitkara granted bail, while emphasizing that the decision does not comment on the merits of the case.
The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement authorities to apply the NDPS Act judiciously and ensure that stringent provisions are invoked only when supported by evidence, safeguarding both public interest and the fundamental rights of individuals.
