Recovery Of Contraband From Vehicle Parked Near 'Premises' Not Enough To Prosecute Owner For Allowing Drug Use On Property: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [May 14] granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that the prosecution had failed to make out a 'prima facie' case under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, as no contraband was found within the petitioner's premises.

Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, punishes anyone who knowingly allows their premises, property, or vehicles to be used for committing a drug offense.

The court observed that finding the narcotic substance from the vehicles parked nearby the premises in question cannot be equated with the owner 'allowing the premises for drug use'.

The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 483 BNSS by the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Kollegala Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar district, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

“…Clearly, even according to the prosecution, no substance was found within the premises…There is considerable force in the submissions made by the petitioner…Section 25 of the NDPS Act…a bare perusal of it indicates that house, room, enclosure or space, etc. should be allowed to be used with the knowledge that it would be used for the commission of an offence…This ingredient is missing in the complaint. Merely because the contraband substance was found in vehicles parked near the premises, the respondent cannot invoke the provision of Section 25. The respondent police has failed to make out a prima facie case…”, the court noted in the order while granting bail to the 67-year-old petitioner residing in Kollegala.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, had earlier rejected the petitioner's bail application on April 17, 2026, in the aforesaid crime.

According to the complaint lodged by the Circle Inspector of Police, the petitioner [Accused No.4] was the owner of a residential plot where Accused No. 1 was holding a birthday party with family and friends. Acting on credible information, the police visited the spot and searched the premises belonging to the petitioner/accused no.4

While no narcotic substance was found on the petitioner's premises, a dog squad traced narcotic substances from a black car parked nearby, which was used by Accused No. 1 to travel to the spot. From that vehicle, police recovered Charas, white powder and other narcotic substances. Additionally, ganja was recovered from the two-wheeler owned by accused no.2. Fifteen persons present on the premises were also subjected to blood tests.

The petitioner was charged as Accused No. 4 on the allegation that he had 'facilitated consumption' of these substances by the other guests.

The counsel for the petitioner-accused no.4 argued that no contraband was recovered from his premises, where the birthday party was happening. The banned substances were only found inside the vehicles, the counsel told the court. The counsel also pointed out that the FSL report had not even been received.

The counsel submitted that these circumstances would not bring the petitioner within the provisions of Section 25 of the NDPS Act and sought bail.

In contrast, the HCGP for the state opposed granting the bail, submitting that the accused persons had admittedly gathered to celebrate a birthday party at a place belonging to the petitioner, which, according to the prosecution, amounted to the petitioner facilitating the consumption of narcotic substances.

After hearing the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the state, the court deemed it fit to grant bail to the accused-petitioner upon his executing a bail bond of Rs two lakhs with two sureties for the like amount.

Case Title: Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka 

Case No: CRL.P 6438/2026