Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Prabhat Pachar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 96/2021 Registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar for the offence(s) under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 16.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he cultivated 1255 opium plants and weight thereof 313.5 kg which were recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the table introduced in the NDPS Act vide notification dated 19.10.2001 to qualify the small and the commercial quantities of the narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances and particularly, the Note no.3 appearing at the bottom of the table, the offence of cultivation of opium poppy is covered under Clause (c) of Section 18 of the NDPS Act and punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. So, the restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS would apply to such cases.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail appli
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. even in cases involving serious allegations under the NDPS Act, provided the circumstances warrant such a decision.
The court determined that the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when the offence does not involve commercial quantity or severe sections, allowing bail.
The court considered the lengthy trial process and absence of other pending cases in granting bail to the accused-petitioner for the offense under the NDPS act.
The absence of specified small and commercial quantities for opium poppy cultivation under the NDPS Act means Section 37 does not apply, allowing for bail.
The court granted bail under the NDPS Act, finding no commercial quantity prescribed for cultivation and no risk of tampering with evidence.
The court ruled that restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when no defined quantity for commercial classification exists, allowing bail.
The lack of minimum sentence prescribed under the NDPS Act and the turning hostile of seizure witnesses influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The court ruled that the absence of specified commercial quantity for poppy cultivation under the NDPS Act, combined with lack of evidence tampering risk, justifies granting bail.
The court applied the provisions of Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act and considered the lack of prescribed quantity for opium poppy plants in granting bail to the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment are relevant considerations for bail, other factors such as the presumption of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
