Case Title: Mohd. Aslam vs. Union Territory of J&K
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 157/2025 c/w Bail App No. 297/2024 & WP(Crl) No. 87/2024
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu Bench
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Sekhri
Reserved on: 01.08.2025
Pronounced on: 19.08.2025
Background of the Case
The petitions arose out of FIR No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station Vijaypur. On 23.07.2024, a naka party intercepted a car (Maruti Swift, Reg. No. JK09P/1912) driven by Mohd. Aslam. Upon search, the police recovered:
16.82 grams of heroin,
₹6,13,000/- in cash, and
an electronic weighing machine.
The contraband was confirmed by FSL report as Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin).
The investigation revealed that Aslam was allegedly collecting drug money on behalf of co-accused Zakir Hussain and others. Consequently, he was charged for offences under Sections 22 and 27-A of the NDPS Act. The vehicle was also seized, leading to separate litigation by its registered owner Hassan Din, who sought its release.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Mohd. Aslam argued that mere possession and a solitary alleged transaction cannot constitute “financing illicit traffic” under Section 27-A NDPS Act.
He highlighted that the recovered heroin was of intermediate quantity and Section 37 NDPS Act was not attracted.
He had already undergone more than one year of custody and sought bail citing his right to speedy trial.
Hassan Din (vehicle owner) contended that he had no knowledge of Aslam’s possession of drugs. He purchased the car on finance and sought its release, arguing that the contraband was recovered from Aslam’s personal possession, not the vehicle.
Stand of the Prosecution
The UT of J&K opposed both petitions, citing the seriousness of the accusations and the gravity of NDPS offences. The State argued that Section 27-A was rightly applied since Aslam was found dealing in cash transactions related to narcotics.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Rajesh Sekhri examined the scope of Section 27-A NDPS Act which punishes:
1. Financing illicit traffic in narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances, and
2. Harbouring offenders.
The Court held:
Mere sale or purchase of drugs on a single occasion does not constitute “financing illicit traffic.” Financing implies sustained monetary support to drug trafficking networks.
There was no evidence of Aslam financing drug operations or harbouring offenders.
Therefore, the trial court erred in framing charges under Section 27-A NDPS Act.
On the question of bail, the Court noted:
Recovery was of intermediate quantity (16.82 grams).
Section 37 NDPS Act (restricting bail in commercial quantity cases) did not apply.
Aslam had been in custody since July 2024, and further incarceration would serve no purpose.
On the vehicle issue, the Court held that:
Merely because a vehicle is seized under NDPS Act, it cannot be indefinitely retained in police custody.
The trial courts have power under BNSS/CrPC to grant interim custody of vehicles.
Since the registered owner was not involved in the offence and had purchased the car on finance, he was entitled to interim release of the vehicle.
Judgment
The High Court allowed both petitions, holding:
1. Order framing charge under Section 27-A NDPS Act (dated 28.10.2024) was set aside.
2. Mohd. Aslam was granted bail on furnishing surety of ₹1 lakh, subject to conditions of not leaving jurisdiction, attending trial, and not tampering with evidence.
3. Vehicle (Maruti Swift JK09P/1912) was ordered to be released to registered owner Hassan Din, on furnishing superdnama and undertaking not to dispose of it till trial/conclusion of confiscation proceedings.
Key Takeaways
The judgment clarifies that Section 27-A NDPS Act requires proof of “financing” or “harbouring”; mere possession or one-time transaction does not suffice.
Courts retain jurisdiction to grant interim release of vehicles seized under NDPS Act.
The decision reinforces the principle that extended pre-trial detention should not be used as punishment, especially when contraband is of intermediate quantity.
