Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Augustine Ballava – Petitioner
versus
State – Respondent
CRM(NDPS)/4/2026
Decided on 27.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manas Ajai Sonkar and Mr. Sumit Kumar Sakthi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Sumit Kumar Karmakar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Strict rigours relating to grant of bail, does not apply to offences under Section 20 of NDPS Act.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 37(1)(b) and 20(a) – Bail application – Allegation of cultivating Cannabis (Ganja) plants – Strict rigours relating to grant of bail, does not apply to offences under Section 20 at all – Although “other offences involving commercial quantity” than Sections mentioned therein is also enumerated in Section 37(1)(b), there is no commercial quantity enumerated in this statute with regard to recovery of Cannabis plants, which is primary allegation against petitioner, and/or in respect of recovery of branches thereof – Rigour of Section 37(1)(b) is not attracted to present case at all – Bail granted. (Paras 8, 9 and 13)
Result: Bail Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a 52-year-old cultivator who was arrested on the charge that he was cultivating Cannabis (Ganja) plants in his backyard. That apart, sealed packets of branches of such plants were found from his bathroom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable, since a charge under Section 20(a) is not covered by the said provision.
3. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites Narayan Das vs. State of West Bengal reported at 2025 SSC OnLine CAL 5223 as well as Beni Madhav vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported at 2020 SSC OnLine HP 3762.
4. It is further submitted that although the narrative in the FIR does not support such allegation, under serial No.5 of the grounds of arrest, it was mentioned that in view of the large volume of public funds misappropriated, the matter involves a grave breach of trust, necessitating firm action to uphold financial integrity and public confidence.
5. On the query of Court as to the apprehension that, if let out on bail, the petitioner may engage in distribution of Cannabis, as sealed packets of branches of Cannabis plants were found in his bathroom, learned counsel of the petitioner submits that he is agreeable to stringent conditions of bail and, if necessary, he will not enter into the jurisdiction of PS Kalighat, where his house and the area were the cannabis plant was found are situated, and shall reside within the territorial jurisdiction of PS Rangat with his brother.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits that if let loose, the petitioner has every chance of further distributing branches of the offending plant. Keeping in view the serious nature of the crime, as it also affects and ruins the future of the younger generation, it is submitted that the prayer for bail should be refused.
7. Upon on a scrutiny of the narrative in the FIR, it is seen that the allegation herein was restricted to some Ganja (Cannabis) plants having been found within the residential premises of the petitioner within PS Kalighat and that some sealed packets of branches of the plant were also recovered from his bathroom. Thus, ground no.5 of the grounds of arrest, relating to public funds being misappropriated, was a superimposition not corroborated by the narrative in the FIR itself. Thus, ground no.5 cannot be a relevant consideration for adjudicating on the prayer for bail.
8. Even otherwise, in consonance with the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes reverse burden of proof on the accused and strict rigours relating to grant of bail, does not apply to offences under Section 20 at all. Although “other offences involving commercial quantity” than the Sections mentioned therein is also enumerated in Section 37(1)(b), there is no commercial quantity enumerated in this statute with regard to recovery of Cannabis plants, which is the primary allegation against the petitioner, and/or in respect of the recovery of branches thereof.
9. Thus, the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) is not attracted to the present case at all.
10. On an independent footing apart from Section 37, the Court finds that as lately as on April, 2026, the Trial Court had rejected the prayer for the bail of the petitioner. However, it is also found that the submissions now made by the petitioner do not find place in the said order, indicating there was no adjudication on the said aspects of the matter.
11. Since the petitioner is agreeable not to enter the territorial jurisdiction of PS Kalighat, where he resides and the offending articles were seized, the possibility of his distributing further branches of the offending plant can be ruled out if an appropriate condition for the grant of bail is imposed to that effect.
12. In any event, as the petitioner otherwise does not come under the rigour of Section 37, the Court is of the opinion that bail ought to
