Police Cannot Permanently Seal Property on Fear of Future Drug Misuse, Rules Allahabad High Court in Payal Sharma v. State of U.P.
Case: Payal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Date of Judgment: 03 November 2026
Court: Allahabad High Court
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Proceedings: Criminal Revision No. 8039 of 2025
Court Observation
“No provision was brought to the notice of the Court that empowers an Inspector to lock or seal a building permanently on the apprehension that the owner might manufacture or sell illegal drugs in the future.”
Summary
The Allahabad High Court has held that the police cannot permanently seal a building merely on the apprehension that the owner might manufacture or sell illegal drugs in the future. Police had raided premises in Agra on 8 July 2023 and sealed the building the same day after allegedly recovering illegal cough syrups, narcotic substances and equipment, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Payal Sharma, the admitted owner of the premises, was not named in the FIR and no charge-sheet was filed against her. On 22 May 2025, the Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, rejected her application for release of the property. Allowing her revision, the High Court held that sealing may be a temporary measure but cannot be permanent unless permitted by law, and that preventive sealing without an existing violation and without lawful statutory authority violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Key Holdings
- No provision of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the NDPS Act or the CrPC/BNSS permits permanently sealing a building on the apprehension that the owner might manufacture or sell illegal drugs in the future.
- Sealing may be a temporary measure, but it cannot be permanent unless permitted by law.
- Preventive sealing without an existing violation and without lawful statutory authority violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.
- The general power to seize property under Section 102 of the CrPC / Section 106 of the BNSS does not include the power to attach, lock or seal immovable property on mere suspicion, following Nevada Properties v. State of Maharashtra.
Directions Issued
- The trial court’s order was set aside and the application for release of the property was remanded for a fresh decision in light of the High Court’s observations, to be decided expeditiously.
Background
After the July 2023 raid and sealing, the property owner applied for release of the building. The trial court rejected her application in May 2025, leading to the revision before the High Court.
Related Articles
- J&K High Court stresses that Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be interpreted in line with the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21
- AP High Court overturns a troubling conviction under the NDPS Act, stating that it was unfair to place the burden on the accused to prove they did not own the cultivated land
- Section 50 NDPS Act Not Applicable To Recovery From Bag Carried By A Person: Supreme Court
Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
