Allowed

Smti Putuli Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2493/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to a 69-year-old female accused with severe eye disease in an NDPS case involving alleged heroin recovery. Court observed that Section 27A of the NDPS Act (financing) may not attract despite cash recovery, quashing that bar for bail disposal, and granted release on bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

Smti Putuli Das Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010181672026

2026:GAU-AS:13721

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2493/2026

¶6

SMTI PUTULI DAS

¶7

W/O LATE PUTUL DAS, VILLAGE DEHING PORIYA, P.S. MARGHERITA, DISTRICT TINSUKIA, ASSAM PH. NO. 9957249701

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR P DOLEY,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

B E F O R E

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

16.09.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. B D Konwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶17

Also heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

6. It appears from the statement of the informant that cash, amounting to Rs.

¶24

7,20,950/-, amongst other things, were recovered during the course of search

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

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.

¶27

7. Section 27A of the NDPS Act penalises financing of activities prohibited by

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

9. The above being said, I am of the view that, having regard to the period of

¶32

detention undergone, as well as the medical condition of the petitioner, the prayer for bail may be allowed.

¶33

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

¶34

the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Addl. Special Judge (FTC) No.

¶35

1 (NDPS), Margherita.

¶36

11. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Smti Putuli Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Putuli Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases