Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Banwari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction invoked for bail (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. submissions by counsel (Para 2) |
| 3. considered submissions and material (Para 4) |
| 4. no defined quantity for bail (Para 8) |
| 5. bail application allowed (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the police received information that illegal opium is being cultivated on a land measuring about 110x57 feet and that the cultivation is becoming ripe and is nearing the stage of harvesting. Police officials went to the spot and found a 4-metre mud
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 absence of a defined quantity for the cultivation of opium poppy under the NDPS Act allows for the granting of bail, as the restrictions of Section 37 do not apply in such cases.
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 definition of Ganja excludes leaves and seeds when not accompanied by flowering tops, affecting bail eligibility under the NDPS Act.
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 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 granted bail under the NDPS Act, finding no commercial quantity prescribed for cultivation and no risk of tampering with evidence.
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
