The Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot permanently seal an immovable property merely on the apprehension that it may be used for manufacturing or selling illegal drugs in the future. Justice Sanjiv Kumar observed that preventive sealing without an existing violation or specific statutory authority violates the constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Background
The dispute arose from Case Crime No. 348 of 2023, registered at Jagdishpura Police Station in Agra under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
According to the prosecution, illegal cough syrups, narcotic substances, machines, equipment and other materials were recovered from the premises during a police raid on July 8, 2023. The authorities sealed the property along with the equipment found inside.
Payal Sharma approached the court seeking release of the premises. Her counsel argued that she was neither named in the FIR nor charge-sheeted and that she was the admitted owner of the property. Despite this, the premises continued to remain sealed for more than two years.
The Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics Act), Agra, rejected her release application on May 22, 2025, observing that the property could potentially be misused in the future. Challenging this order, she approached the High Court.
The High Court examined whether the NDPS Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure authorised authorities to keep an immovable property sealed indefinitely.
The Court noted that the State's counsel could not point to any statutory provision permitting indefinite sealing merely because an offence might be repeated. It also examined Sections 22(1)(c) and 22(2A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which permit restrictions on the disposal of drug stocks for twenty days, but do not authorise sealing an entire immovable property.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, the Court observed:
"The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Private Limited Through its Director (supra) has clarified that the general power of the police to seize property, under Section 102 Cr.P.C., (corresponding to Section 106 B.N.S.S.) does not include the power to attach, lock or seal immovable property on the mere suspicion of an offence."
The Court further emphasised the constitutional protection available to property owners, observing:
"Preventive sealing of immovable property in the absence of an existing violation and lawful statutory authority violates Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Therefore, to seal or attach a property, there must be an existing violation or an express statutory provision authorizing such action and the procedure prescribed by law must be followed."
Finding no legal basis for keeping the premises permanently sealed merely on the apprehension of future misuse, the High Court held that the Trial Court's reasoning was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the order dated May 22, 2025, and directed the Trial Court to reconsider Payal Sharma's application for release of the property afresh, in accordance with law and in light of the High Court's observations, expeditiously.
Case Details:
Case Title: Payal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 8039 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Decision Date: November 3, 2026
