Sealing may be a temporary measure, but it cannot be permanent unless the law permits it. The Allahabad High Court has held that police cannot permanently seal property merely because they fear its owner may one day manufacture or sell illegal drugs there, setting aside an Agra trial court order that refused to release a building sealed since July 2023.
Prayagraj: Preventive sealing of immovable property, without an existing violation and without a law that permits it, violates Article 300-A of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court has ruled. Allowing a criminal revision filed by the owner of premises in Agra, who was neither named in the FIR nor charge-sheeted, the Court set aside the trial court’s refusal to release her property and sent the release application back for a fresh decision [Payal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].
Justice Sanjiv Kumar delivered the judgment on November 3, 2026 in Criminal Revision No. 8039 of 2025.
No statute allows indefinite sealing
The Court noted that the AGA could not point to any provision of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the NDPS Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure permitting property to be sealed indefinitely on the ground that an offence might be repeated. Sections 22(1)(c) and 22(2A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act only let an Inspector restrain disposal of drug stock for twenty days. Under the NDPS Act, Section 42(1)(c) allows seizure of drugs and materials, Section 63 provides for confiscation by the trial court, and Section 68F provides a separate procedure for seizing or freezing illegally acquired property. Nothing showed that any of these was followed.
Applying Nevada Properties, the Court held that the general police power of seizure under Section 102 CrPC (now Section 106 BNSS) does not include a power to attach, lock or seal immovable property on mere suspicion. It observed:
“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. Sealing of property may be a temporary measure, but it cannot be permanent in nature unless permitted under law.”
“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.”
The raid and the sealing
Police raided the premises at Agra on July 8, 2023 and sealed them the same day on the strength of the machines found inside. According to the prosecution, illegal cough syrups, narcotic substances, machines and equipment were recovered. Case Crime No. 348 of 2023 was registered at Police Station Jagdishpura under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25, 27-A, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act and provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, against the named accused.
After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under the IPC and the NDPS Act, but not under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The revisionist, Payal Sharma, the admitted owner of the premises, was not named in the FIR and no charge-sheet was filed against her. On May 22, 2025, the Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Agra rejected her application for release of the property.
What the parties argued
Her counsel argued that neither the NDPS Act nor the Drugs and Cosmetics Act authorises sealing of premises, that sealing to secure evidence can only be temporary, and that more than two years later the authorities had neither removed the machines nor released the property. Reliance was placed on Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 20 SCC 119 and a Bombay High Court ruling in Narayan Power Solutions v. Union of India.
The State, through the AGA, defended the trial court’s order and submitted that the premises had been seized on the apprehension that they might be misused in future.
The order that went back
Since the trial court had rejected the release application solely on the ground that the property might be misused in future, the High Court held that the finding “has no legal basis”. It set aside the order of May 22, 2025 and directed the trial court to decide the release application afresh and expeditiously, in light of its observations and in accordance with law.
The ruling concerns only the sealing of the property. The criminal case against the accused named in the FIR remains pending, the allegations are yet to be tested at trial, and the Court expressed no view on their merits; every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why the judgment matters
Premises linked to drug seizures often stay locked for years, long after evidence has been collected, even when their owners are not accused. The judgment makes clear that sealing must rest on a specific statutory power and a lawful procedure, and that a general fear of future misuse is not enough to keep an owner out of her property. It gives owners of sealed premises, and trial courts hearing release applications, a clear test drawn from Article 300-A and Nevada Properties.
Case Title: Payal Sharma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 8039 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjiv Kumar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Ajay Kumar Pandey for the revisionist; AGA Anil Kumar Mishra for the State