Bail Appln./2493/2026 of SMTI PUTULI DAS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 15 September 2026

ORDER

16.09.2026

Heard Mr. B D Konwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of regular bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Smt. Putuli Das, in connection with NDPS Case No. 29/2026 arising out of Margherita P.S. Case No. 41/2026, registered under Section 61(2) of the BNS, read with Sections 21(b)/27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 111 of the BNS.

3. As per the allegations, 28.21 grams of suspected heroin (intermediate quantity) was recovered from various concealed places inside the house of the petitioner, who resides therein with her son who is also an accused in this case. The petitioner was arrested on 01.05.2026, and has since then spent 139 days in custody. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lady aged 69 years and suffers from chronic and significant eye disease, resulting in loss of vision.

4. Considering the above, the prayer for bail may be allowed, submitted learned Senior Counsel.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted, wherein Section 27A of the NDPS Act has also been incorporated and, therefore, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would also be attracted.

6. It appears from the statement of the informant that cash, amounting to Rs. 7,20,950/-, amongst other things, were recovered during the course of search and seizure. It is submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the said recovery was made from a field at the backside of the house of the petitioner. It is also stated by the informant himself that the said cash so recovered is suspected to be proceeds/assets acquired from the illicit drug trade.

7. Section 27A of the NDPS Act penalises financing of activities prohibited by the Act, as well as harboring of offenders. The word ‘financing’ if understood in its plain meaning would indicate an act of providing money for the intended activity that may be carried out for the benefit of any individual whether including the financer or not, or any group or the public at large. In the present case, the allegation is of recovery of cash, and that too from a field at the backside of the house of the petitioner, but there is no allegation that the petitioner had financed the illicit drug trade. Buying and selling of drugs would certainly entail money changing hands thereby enriching the seller, as in any trade. But every such transaction cannot be brought within the definition of ‘financing’ as intended in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. Having regard to the above, prima faciae, it appears that the aforesaid provision of Section 27A may not be attracted. However, this is an observation only for the purpose of disposal of the bail application, and shall not have any bearing on any other proceeding.

9. The above being said, I am of the view that, having regard to the period of detention undergone, as well as the medical condition of the petitioner, the prayer for bail may be allowed.

10. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner, Smt. Putuli Das, shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Addl. Special Judge (FTC) No. 1 (NDPS), Margherita.

11. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant