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.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.09/2025 registered at Police Station Haddan, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 18 of the NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution, on 18.02.2025, acting upon a secret information, the SHO Police Station Haddan District Bikaner, along with his team reached to the fields of the petitioner and saw 102 green plants of poppy with fruits growing illegally thereon. The police team thereupon uprooted the said plants and upon weighing them found them to be of 4 Kgs and 300 gms. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is covered under Section 8 (b) of the NDPS Act which is punishable under Section 18. Learned counsel contended that since in the present case, the police had recovered poppy plants, the punishment for cultivation of the same would fall under the Sub-clause (c) of section 18 as no commercial or small quantity has been prescribed for poppy plants. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the cases of:

(i) Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.6894/2022) decided on 25.05.2022.

(ii) Kallu Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.2676/2022) decided on 27.05.2022.

5. Lastly, Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; no case of similar nature is pending against the petitioner and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

7. This Court is conscious of the S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19.10.2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt.II Section 3(ii) dated 19.10.2001 and Note no.3 appended to the table thereto, which provides:

“3. “Small Quantity” and “Commercial Quantity” with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately as the offence in this regard is covered under clause (c) of section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .”

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that since the offence in the present case is not punishable under Sections 19, 24 and 27A and neither any commercial quantity has been prescribed for the cultivation of poppy plants as per the notification as stated above; and particularly since the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or involving himself in cases of similar nature in case he is enlarged on bail, therefore the embargo contained in Section 37 is not applicable in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dharma Ram S/o Shanker Lal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.09/2025 registered at Police Station Hadan, District Bikaner, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.