[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Rupam Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 9 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
B.A. No.10 of 2026
&
B.A. No.22 of 2026
In B.A. No.10 of 2026
Smt. Rupam Debbarma
wife of Sri Atul Debbarma, aged about 38 years,
resident of Nailabari, P.S. Champahour,
District- Khowai Tripura
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of:
Sri Atul Debbarma
son of Sri Aditya Debbarma, aged about 34 years,
resident of Nailabari, P.S. Champahour,
District- Khowai Tripura
...... Accused person(s)
By Advocate:
Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
-Versus-
The State of Tripura
By Advocate:
Mr. R. Datta, PP
In B.A. No.22 of 2026
Smt. Gita Rani Singh
wife of late Prafulla Chandra Singh,
resident of Paharmura, Bazartilla, P.S. Khowai,
District- Khowai Tripura
......... Applicant(s)
On behalf of:
Sri Pratap Chandra Singh
son of Sri Pradip Chandra Singh, resident of
Paharmura, Bazartilla, P.S. Khowai, District-
Khowai Tripura
...... Accused person(s)
By Advocate:
Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate
-Versus-
The State of Tripura
By Advocate:
Mr. R. Datta, PP
...... Respondent(s)
Date of hearing : 06.02.2026
Date of delivery of
judgment and order : 09.03.2026
Yes No
Whether fit for reporting :
✔
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Both the bail applications are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order, as same have arisen out of a single police
case.
[2] On 12.07.2025, S.I. Francis Halam lodged one FIR at Khowai
Police Station stating that based on a secret information that a drug deal was
about to take place in the house of one Sri Pradip Chandra Singha at
Paharmura, Bazartilla, he noted the information in writing in the GD book and
took authorization from the O/C, Khowai P.S. to conduct raid and search.
Thereafter, he accompanied with other police personnel raided the house of
said Pradip Chandra Singha and found the main door of the house was open
and total four persons including one woman were sitting on the floor, counting
money and packing suspected heroin. Those persons disclosed the name of
the house owner to be said Pradip Chandra Singha who somehow fled away
from the spot. The informant thereafter detained his son Pratap Chandra
Singha (one of the present petitioners), wife Smt. Anjana Das Singha and
another person, namely Atul Debbarma (one of the present petitioners). The
informant called one independent witness there. Meanwhile, Executive
Magistrate and SDPO, Khowai also arrived at the spot and on search, they
recovered total 9.20 grams of suspected heroin kept in one pouch and in some
vials. They also recovered Rs.10,385/- of Indian currency note kept on the
floor of that hut. He seized those items by preparing a seizure list, arrested
accused persons and then lodged the FIR.
[3] The FIR was registered as Khowai P.S. case No.33/2025 under
Sections 21(b)/25/27-A/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
[for short, the NDPS Act]
[4] The police authority carried out the investigation and finally, the
Investigating Officer, namely S.I. Sri Ranjit Sarkar laid the charge-sheet
against all of them including one Bhuban Sarkar under Sections 21(b)/25/27-
A/29 of the NDPS Act and also simultaneously prayed for custody trial of all
the accused persons.
[5] Both the accused persons are in custody since their arrest on
12.07.2025 and their production before the learned Court on 13.07.2025. The
charges in this case are already framed by the learned Special Judge, Khowai,
Tripura under Sections 21(b)/25/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act and out of total 22
numbers of cited witnesses, the prosecution already examined 15 witnesses.
[6] Both Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused
person in B.A. No.10 of 2026 and Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing
for the accused person in B.A. No.22 of 2026 submit that there is no material
available in the record to attract Section 27-A of the NDPS Act and even the
witnesses already examined have also not disclosed anything as such to
attract Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. According to them, when there is no
material to attract Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, rigour of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act will also not be applicable in this case and as for a considerable
period i.e. for more than 6[six] months they are in custody, bail may be granted
to both the accused persons on any condition.
[7] Mr. R. Datta, learned PP appearing for the State strongly opposes
the prayer submitting that already charge is framed under Section 27-A of the
NDPS Act and the accused persons have not challenged the same. Therefore,
Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply in this case.
[8] After taking into consideration the submissions of both sides, the
Court has gone through the statements of witnesses as were recorded by the
investigating officer and also the testimonies of witnesses recorded in the
Court who are already examined. The materials as surfaced in the record are
that intermediate quantity of heroin were recovered from the said house where
all the accused persons, except Bhuban Sarkar, were found dealing with
contraband narcotic items and Rs.10000/- was also recovered from the floor of
the said hut where they were found sitting.
[9] Now the next question arises whether recovery of said amount of
money can constitute the offence under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act and
whether the same can be termed as "financing" in such dealings.
[10] In other words, what is the purport and meaning of the word
"financing" as used in Section 27-A of the NDPS Act and whether the
ingredients of Section 27-A are available in this record.
[11] In United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988, the countries participated in the
convention at that time were deeply concerned by the magnitude of and rising
trend in the illicit production of, demand for and traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, which posed a serious threat to the health and
welfare of the human beings and was also simultaneously affecting the
economic and political culture of the society adversely. Therefore, certain
resolutions were adopted to promote cooperation among the participant
countries so that they might combat against the illicit trafficking of drugs and
psychotropic substances effectively in the international dimension.
[12] In Article 3 (1) (a) of the said declaration, the following resolutions
were adopted:
Article 3
OFFENCES AND SANCTIONS
1. Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to
establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed
intentionally:
a) i) The production, manufacture, extraction; preparation, offering,
offering for sale, distribution, sale, delivery on any terms
whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit,
transport, importation or exportation of any narcotic drug or
any psychotropic substance contrary to the provisions of the
1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the
1971 Convention;
ii) The cultivation of opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis
plant for the purpose of the production of narcotic drugs
contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention and the
1961 Convention as amended;
iii) The possession or purchase of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance for the purpose of any of the
activities enumerated in i) above;
iv) The manufacture, transport or distribution of equipment,
materials or of substances listed in Table I and Table II,
knowing that they are to be used in or for the illicit cultivation,
production or manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances;
v) The organization, management or financing of any of the
offences enumerated in i), ii), iii) or iv) above;
[13] The word "financing" with the words „organisation‟ and
„management‟ of any of the offences enumerated above, found place in the
said resolution in the above said wordings.
[14] Thereafter, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Amendment Bill, 1988 was introduced and during debate in Rajya Sabha
(Council of States) after the said bill was passed in Lok Sabha, the then
Hon‟ble Minister of State in the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of
Finance addressed some salient features of the proposed amendment bill,
wherein it was noted that financing in illicit traffic and harbouring of drug
offenders would be offences liable for punishment at the same level as per
drug traffic offences. Subsequently, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Amendment Act, 1988 was brought into force, whereby Section
27-A was introduced. Said provision of Section 27A, as it stands now, reads as
under:
27-A. Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring
offenders.--
Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any of the
activities specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viii-b) of
section 2 or harbours any person engaged in any of the
aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years
but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to
fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may
extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
[15] Said provision originally referred to the activities specified in sub-
Clauses (i) to (v) of Clause (viii-a) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act in respect of
"financing" and therefore, the said provision also requires a reference. The
said provision of Clause (viii-a) in Section 2 of NDPS Act has now been re-
lettered as Clause (viii-b) which defines "illicit traffic" more or less in the same
line as was adopted in the United Nations Convention as reflected earlier. The
said provision of Clause (viii-b) of Section 2 of NDPS Act reads as under:
(viii-b)"illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, means-
(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca
plant;
(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;
(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale,
purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or
consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into
India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances;
(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances other than those referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii);
or
(v) handling or letting out any premises for the carrying on of any
of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv);
other than those permitted under this Act, or any rule or order
made, or any condition of any licence, term or authorisation
issued, thereunder, and includes--
(1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned
activities;
(2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of
doing any of the aforementioned activities; and
(3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned
activities;
[16] The activity like illegal purchase as mentioned under the provision
of sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(viii-b) is taken care of by separate penal
provisions enumerated in the Act and such activity also involve monetary
transactions. Therefore, "financing" should be interpreted and understood
keeping in mind above said legislative history and intent.
[17] According to Black‟s Law Dictionary, 9th edition, the word
"financing" means to raise or provide funds. As per Webster‟s New World
Dictionary, the word "financing" means and (i) to supply money for or (ii) to
manage the money of; and as per K.J. Aiyar Judicial Dictionary, 16th Edition,
the word "financing" when used as a verb, it carries the meaning „to supply
money for a certain purpose‟. On the other hand, as per Black‟s Law
Dictionary, the word „invest‟ in verb form in this context means to apply
(money) for profit; as per Webster‟s New World Dictionary, it means to put
(money) into business, real estate, stocks, bonds etc. for the purpose of
obtaining an income or profit, and as per K J Aiyar‟s Judicial Dictionary, it
means „to apply money in the purchase of some property from which interest
or profit is expected‟. There are some differences between the words „applying
of money‟ and „supplying of money‟. Section 27-A deals with the issue of
financing. To carry out any of the activities as mentioned in section 2(viii-b) of
the Act, one is required to invest money from his own or get the finance from
some other person(s). There are several penal provisions in the Act which take
care of the situation where one or more such activities are performed by way
of investment of one‟s own money. But where somebody supplies money for
the same, certainly he would come within the gamut of section 27-A of the Act.
Procurement of any narcotic item or psychotropic substance for one‟s own
consumption is also made punishable separately under section 27 of the Act.
[18] The Bombay High Court in the case of Rhea Chakraborty vs.
Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 990 has observed that simply
providing money for a particular transaction or other transactions will not be
financing of that activity. Financing will have to be interpreted to mean to
provide funds for either making that particular activity operational or for
sustaining it. It is also observed that it is the financial support which directly or
indirectly is cause of existence of such illicit traffic and therefore, the word
"financing" would necessarily refer to some activities involving illegal trade or
business. However, said order was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Rhea Chakraborty & anr., Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.(s). 2127 of 2021 and Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 18.7.2023 has observed that the question of law raised therein, is left
open to be considered in an appropriate case and as such, the judgment of the
High Court shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.
[19] The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Rakesh
Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. the State of West Bengal, in CRM 3152
of 2021 decided on 24.11.2021 observes that one solitary transaction
concerning contraband items would not amount to financing illicit traffic in
narcotics. These are also observed that the word "trafficking" connotes
continuous flow and there has to be some degree of continuity and regularity
in drug dealing before a person can be said to be trafficking in drugs. Similarly,
financing illicit traffic would necessarily mean doing so on a regular or
continuous basis. It is much more than purchasing or selling contrabands
items on one occasion and a solitary transaction would not fall within the
mischief of section 27-A of the Act. While deciding so, the Calcutta High Court
also referred the decision of Rhea Chakraborty's case. However, decision of
Calcutta High Court was prior to the order passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Rhea Chakraborty & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.(s). 2127 of 2021. In Rakesh Singh's case, there was no recovery
of any contraband item from the possession of the petitioner or from any place
over which he has any control. 76 grams i.e. of intermediate quantity of
cocaine was recovered from other three persons who were travelling in a car
at that time. But they were ultimately not charge-sheeted though FIR was
lodged against them. The investigating agency totally changed their case from
what were alleged in the FIR and they later on claimed that the accused
Rakesh Singh had planted the contraband in their car to put them in trouble.
[20] The order of the Calcutta High Court was challenged before the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court by the State Government in State of West Bengal vs.
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, [2022] 14 SCR 538 and the Apex
Court taking notes of above said facts dismissed the appeal. The relevant
portion of the observations of Hon‟ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:
16.3. Once the veracity of the prosecution case against
the respondent is in serious doubt, further analysis on the other
factors about financing the drug trafficking and harbouring of
offender need not be undertaken because, when the story of
planting of contraband is removed out of consideration, all other
factors b which respondent is sought to be connected with such
alleged planting could only be regarded as false and fanciful, at
least at this stage.
16.4. Hence, suffice it to observe for the present
purpose that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the
High Court has rightly found that applicability of Section 27A
NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case. That being the
position; and there being otherwise no recovery from the
respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate
quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to the
present case.
17. After the discussion aforesaid, we are constrained
to reiterate that the High Court has dealt with this part of the
matter without much elaboration and rightly so, for only the
prayer of bail being under consideration. However, we have
considered it appropriate to delve farther in the matter in view of
the submissions made and material presented before us. In any
case, for what has been discussed hereinabove, the result
precisely remains the same as indicated by the High Court, that
diametrically opposite case in the charge-sheet than that alleged
in FIR gives rise to serious doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution case against the respondent. In this view of the
matter, the other part of submissions and reference to the cases
of Md. Nawaz Khan and Rhea Chakraborty (supra) do not require
much elaboration. As aforesaid, when the case against the
respondent of getting the contraband planted in the vehicle in
question is prima-facie disbelieved because of material available
on record, the questions concerning possession of contraband,
its quantity or financing are all rendered redundant......
[21] The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of
Mohd. Aslam vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir in CRM (M) No.157
of 2025 in connection with Bail App. No.297 of 2024 decided on 19.08.2025
expresses the view that "finance", in essence means to facilitate economic
activity and growth by enabling somebody to secure the funding, he needs to
operate and expand an activity. On the other hand, a sale consideration or a
payment made for a particular transaction would not tantamount to "financing".
Therefore, finance of „illicit traffic‟, within the meaning of Section 27-A of NDPS
Act, connotes drug peddling on regular and continuous basis, different from
illicit sale/purchase of contraband items.
[22] Again, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the
case of Mazeed Ali vs. U.T. of J & K through Station Officer Police Station
Majalta, Udhampur, Bail App No.368 of 2025/ Crl.M. No.2286 of 2025,
decided on 09.02.2026 has observed as under:
15. It is manifest, as such, from aforesaid definitions that all the
activities mentioned in clause 2 (viiib) (iii), and Section 27-A
NDPS Act involve monetary transactions. In other words, there is
use of money in sale and purchase and also in financing.
However, financing, in common parlance, would mean providing
funds to facilitate the activities contained in sub clauses (i) to (v)
of clause (viiib) of Section 2 of NDPS Act and involves the
activities other than sale or purchase of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances.
16. A Financer being skilled in financial transactions would often
lend, invest or raise capital to sustain a particular activity. He is
not privy to the activity or a sale transaction. Thus, ―Finance‖, in
essence means to facilitate economic activity by enabling
somebody to secure the funds, he needs to operate. On the other
hand, a sale consideration or a payment made for a particular
transaction would not amount to ―financing‖.
In both the cases, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladak
has taken note of the decision of Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty's
case.
[23] Kerala High Court in the case of Ashraf vs. State of Kerala, 2009
SCC OnLine Ker 6502 observes that the expression "financing" is not related
to the payment of the value of the narcotic drug. It involves an activity other
than sale or purchase of the narcotic drug, in which a person invests or
provides funds or resources for facilitating the activities mentioned in sub-cls.
(i) to (v) of cl. (viiia) of S. 2 of the NDPS Act. The word "financing" involves the
presence of a party who is not a party to the sale of the drug.
[24] The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhchain
Masih @ Lalla vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-54246-2025, decided on
14.11.2025 has held as under:
―20. Section 27-A and 2(viiib) of the NDPS Act nowhere, directly
or indirectly, mentions any cash found along with the contraband
as ―Drug Money‖ or ―Proceeds of Drug Sale‖. Since the
legislature did not use the term ―Drug Money‖ in §27-A or 2(viiib)
of the NDPS Act, this Court cannot import such words because
apparently the usage looks like a folly. Before invoking §27-A of
the NDPS Act, one needs to show that the said money was to be
used to finance the illicit traffic of drugs. Even when, along with
contraband, any money or sovereign metal, etc., is recovered,
§27-A does not permit an investigator to treat such money, etc.,
automatically, as ―financing illicit traffic‖.
[25] Further, in paragraph Nos.40 and 51 of said decision, the
followings were observed:
40. The lack of evidence of "financing illicit traffic" would militate
strongly against the application of Section 27A. It must be
confined to conduct that demonstrates sustained or structural
support for the trafficking network, rather than mere
transactional-level procurement or consumption. If there is
prima-facie sufficient evidence of illicit financing of drug
trafficking, then even the recovery of the drug or the drug money
is not a statutory condition precedent for invoking Section 27A.
*** *** ***
51. Section 27-A is specific, restrictive, and requires concrete
evidence of financing or harboring, and the statutory ingredients
require either the active provision of resources for illicit traffic or
the sheltering of offenders, and in countenance, whenever any
Investigating agency invokes the stringent provisions of Section
27A, the possibility is writ large that mischief is being carried out
to make the offence non-bailable and bail difficult by triggering
the legislative restrictions placed on bail through Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
[26] Therefore, what emerges from the above said discussions,
whenever any amount is directly or indirectly funded by a person in carrying
out any of the activities as mentioned in section 2(viii-b) of the Act by some
other person(s), such funding is treated as financing and it comes within the
sweep of Section 27-A of the Act and if any such activity is performed or
accomplished by a person by his own investment, generally it does not attract
section 27-A of the Act.
[27] In view of the position of law as discussed above, let us examine
the present case in hand for a very limited purpose to determine the merit of
these bail applications.
[28] On perusal of the materials placed in the record, it appears that
none of 15 [fifteen] numbers of witnesses as already examined in the Court
have stated anything about the "financing" by any of these two accused
persons in the said drug deal. Out of rests, 7[seven] numbers of unexamined
witnesses as cited in the charge-sheet, only statements of 3[three] witnesses,
namely Sri Abhijit Debnath [Upa-Pradhan], Sri Madan Sarkar [Sub Inspector of
Police] and Er. Pritam Chakma [Manager of TSECL] were recorded by the
investigating officer and two of them namely, Sri Abhijit Debnath and Sri
Madan Sarkar have only stated that the accused persons were involved in
drug trafficking but they have not stated anything specifically about any sort of
"financing" by any of these two accused persons. Therefore, there is no prima-
facie material to invoke Section 27-A of the NDPS Act against the present
accused petitioners and as such rigour of section 37 of the Act will not be
applicable against these two persons. Admittedly, this is a case concerning
intermediate quantity of psychotropic substances and both the accused
persons are in custody for a period of 7[seven] months. The maximum
numbers of witnesses are already examined in this case and their evidences
are also recorded by the Court. The accused persons are permanent residents
of their given addresses.
[29] Considering thus, the bails prayers of both the accused persons,
namely Sri Atul Debbarma and Sri Pratap Chandra Singh are allowed. They
may go on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only]
each along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
Special Judge, Khowai on conditions that (i) the sureties must be the
permanent resident of Tripura; (ii) the accused persons will regularly attend the
Court to face the trial (iii) they will not leave the State of Tripura without prior
permission of the learned Special Judge, Khowai and such permission can be
accorded by the learned Special Judge only on any special ground (iv) they
will not terrorise or influence the unexamined witnesses of the case; and (v)
they will also record their attendance before the learned Special Judge,
Khowai once in a week till the trial is completed or unless their such
attendance is dispensed with by Ld. Special Judge.
It is clarified that what are discussed herein above concerning the
evidences and materials available in the record are discussed for very limited
purposes to decide the merit of these bail applications and same will have no
bearing in the charge already framed and in the trial.
With such observation and directions, these bail applications are
disposed of.
Reconsign the records of the learned trial Court along with a copy
of this order immediately.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2026.03.09 15:58:55 +05'30'
Sujay
