The Karnataka High Court has clarified that liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proven knowledge and permission to use premises for drug-related offences - not mere proximity of contraband. This ruling reinforces the necessity of mens rea in drug prosecutions and provides critical guidance for bail applications in similar cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Fayaz Khan, aged 67, is accused No.4 in Crime No.55/2026 registered by the Kollegala Rural Police Station under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, and 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case arises from a birthday celebration held on 03.04.2026 at a property owned by the petitioner in Kollegala Town, Chamaranagara District. Although the petitioner was present at the event, no contraband was found within his premises. The alleged narcotics were recovered from a black car (KA-05/NK4038) parked nearby and from the two-wheeler of accused No.2.
Key Facts
- The birthday party was attended by approximately 50 - 60 persons on 03.04.2026.
- The petitioner’s property (Sy. No. 127) was the venue, but no drugs were found inside the house or on the petitioner’s person.
- A dog squad located contraband in a black car parked near the property: 157.15 gms of charas, 43.24 gms of brown powder, 1.4 gms of roots, 6.26 gms of white powder, and 22.54 gms of light brown crystal powder.
- An additional 95.70 gms of ganja was recovered from the two-wheeler of accused No.2 (KA-10/EJ6185).
- Urine tests were conducted on attendees, but no results linking the petitioner to consumption were disclosed.
- The petitioner was arrested on 03.04.2026 and has been in custody since.
- The prosecution’s complaint, at page 22 of the petition, explicitly states that no contraband was found within the petitioner’s premises.
Procedural History
- 03.04.2026: Arrest of petitioner (Accused No.4) by Kollegala Rural Police.
- 03.04.2026: Crime No.55/2026 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, and 27(b) of the NDPS Act.
- 14.05.2026: Criminal Petition No.6438/2026 filed under Section 439 CrPC (read with Section 483 BNSS) before the Karnataka High Court seeking bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proof that the accused knowingly permitted the premises to be used for commission of the offence. Since no contraband was found on the petitioner’s property, and the substances were recovered from a third party’s vehicle parked nearby, there is no basis to invoke Section 25 against him. The prosecution’s case lacks the essential ingredient of knowledge or consent.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that by allowing the premises to be used for a gathering where drugs were consumed, the petitioner facilitated the offence. The presence of the vehicle near the property, coupled with the petitioner’s attendance, was sufficient to infer complicity under Section 25.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks immediate release on bail pending trial, arguing that the charges against him are legally unsustainable due to absence of mens rea and factual basis under Section 25.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 can be invoked against a person who neither possessed nor controlled the contraband, and where the drugs were recovered from a vehicle parked near, but not within, their premises, absent any evidence of knowledge or permission.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the plain language of Section 25, which requires the accused to "knowingly permit" the use of premises for commission of an offence. Citing the prosecution’s own complaint, counsel emphasized that no contraband was found on the petitioner’s property. The car in which drugs were found belonged to accused No.1, not the petitioner. The mere fact of hosting a gathering does not equate to permitting drug use. The counsel cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Rajesh v. State of Haryana to underscore that liability under Section 25 is not vicarious or automatic.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the petitioner, as the owner of the premises, bore responsibility for activities occurring there. The presence of a large gathering with drug consumption, even if the substances were in a vehicle, constituted facilitation under the mischief of the Act. The State contended that the petitioner’s failure to prevent the use of his property for such purposes amounted to implied permission.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the complaint and the statutory language of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which states: "Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence."
"Clearly even according to the prosecution, no substance is found within the premises of the petitioner/accused No.4. The contraband substance allegedly found in the car parked near the property belonging to the petitioner/accused No.4."
The Court observed that the prosecution’s own averments negate the essential element of knowledge and permission. The vehicle containing the contraband was not owned, controlled, or even regularly used by the petitioner. The fact that it was parked nearby does not transform the petitioner’s property into a "place" permitted for drug use under the statute. The Court held that Section 25 requires active, conscious permission - not passive association or proximity.
The Court further noted that the prosecution failed to establish any communication, arrangement, or prior knowledge linking the petitioner to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The presence of 50 - 60 persons at a birthday party, without more, cannot be construed as evidence of the petitioner’s intent to facilitate drug consumption. The Court emphasized that criminal liability under the NDPS Act must be grounded in specific, proven conduct, not speculative inference.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the petitioner’s attendance at the event amounted to implied consent. Such an interpretation would render Section 25 unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the principle of legality in criminal law.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the criminal petition and directed the release of accused No.4, Fayaz Khan, on bail in Crime No.55/2026. He is required to execute a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with one local surety of like amount. He must appear regularly before the Trial Court, not tamper with witnesses, not commit similar offences, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. The Court warned that any breach of these conditions will result in immediate cancellation of bail.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Knowledge Is Non-Negotiable Under Section 25 NDPS Act
- Practitioners must now insist that prosecution prove actual knowledge and permission - not mere presence or proximity - for Section 25 charges.
- Bail applications under Section 439 CrPC should highlight absence of direct control or ownership of the contraband location.
- Courts must reject speculative inferences that equate hosting an event with facilitating drug use.
Vehicle Location Does Not Equate to Premises Use
- Contraband recovered from a vehicle parked outside a property cannot trigger Section 25 unless the accused had control over the vehicle or explicitly permitted its use for the offence.
- Defence counsel should challenge the legal characterization of "conveyance" under Section 25 when the accused has no connection to the vehicle.
- Prosecution must provide evidence of communication, prior arrangement, or consent to use the premises for drug-related activity.
Burden of Proof Remains on the State
- The burden to establish "knowing permission" under Section 25 lies entirely with the prosecution.
- Absent direct evidence (e.g., text messages, witness testimony, recorded statements), charges under Section 25 are unsustainable.
- This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability under the NDPS Act cannot be extended by judicial implication.
