Back
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Shivji Ram @ Shivji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. On behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 0025/2023, Police Station Mangaliyawas, District Ajmer, for the offence under Section 8 /18 for the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Note No. 3 appended below the Schedule of the NDPS Act, cultivation of poppy straw would be punishable under Section 18 (C) of the NDPS Act and thus, the restriction contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot operate against the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents. He submits that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and the trial of the case is likely to consume time. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advances by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the offence of cultivating opium
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 court granted bail under the NDPS Act, finding no commercial quantity prescribed for cultivation and no risk of tampering with evidence.
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 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 ruled that restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when no defined quantity for commercial classification exists, allowing bail.
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 established that the lack of a defined quantity for the cultivation of opium poppy under the NDPS Act allows for the possibility of bail, as the restrictions of Section 37 do not apply in s....
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.
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
