SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1483

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Mohan, S/o Chamna Bhagora - Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3988 of 2025
Decided On : 03-04-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati
For the Respondents: Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP

The court determined that improper weighing of ganja plants resulted in a quantity below the commercial threshold, allowing bail despite NDPS Act restrictions.

Headnote:

(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8 and 20 - Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) - Petitioner arrested for cultivating ganja plants without a license - Prosecution claims recovery of 127 ganja plants weighing 15.210 kgs - Petitioner contends false implication and lack of conscious possession - Court finds that actual weight of ganja is below commercial quantity due to improper weighing - Section 37 of NDPS Act does not apply as the offence does not involve commercial quantity - Bail application accepted. (Paras 1-13)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail for NDPS offences - Section 37 prohibits bail for commercial quantity offences, but not applicable here as the recovered quantity is less than commercial - Reference to Kallu Nath case where similar bail was granted. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for cultivating ganja plants on his agricultural field, with the prosecution claiming a recovery of 15.210 kgs of ganja plants. The petitioner argued that the recovery was improperly weighed and that he was falsely implicated. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the actual weight of the ganja was less than the commercial quantity due to improper weighing methods, thus allowing bail. (Paras 8-12)

Issues: Whether the petitioner had conscious possession of the ganja plants and whether the quantity recovered constituted a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. (Paras 3-4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the improper weighing of ganja plants meant the quantity was below the commercial threshold, thus allowing bail despite the NDPS Act's restrictions. (Paras 11-12)

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

1. This application for bail under Section 483 ofBNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.110/2025 registered at Police Station Garhi, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act .

2. As per the prosecution on 21.03.2025, acting upon a secret information, a team of Police Station Garhi raided the field belonging to the present petitioner, registered in the name of his father- Chamna Bhagora situated near DP and found 127 ganja plants weighing 15.210 kgs. growing therein. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of the contraband was of ganja plants growing on the agricultural field, thus, conscious possession of the petitioner cannot be deduced. It was also submitted that as the whole plants were weighed without removing the stems, roots, leaves etc., the said recovery amounts to an offence under section 20 (a) of NDPS Act for which no commercial quantity has been prescribed. Therefore, the embargo contained under Section 37 would not be attracted.

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

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

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

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was cultivating ganja plants in his field without a license.

8. The notification in effect that specifies small and commercial quantity for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19th October, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II Sec. 3 (ii) dated 19th October, 2001 and the commercial quantity specified therein for ganja is 20 kgs. For the purpose of determining the total weight of the recovered contraband ganja in the present case, the whole plants were taken into consideration, including the seeds, roots, stems and leaves, along with the soil as well whereas only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plants should have been taken for weighing of contraband ganja as per the definition clause under NDPS Act . As there was no bifurcation of seeds and leaves from the flowering or fruiting tops before weighing the recovered contraband. Thus, it is safe to infer that the actual weight of ganja so recovered would be less than the claimed weight and therefore, below the stipulated commercial quantity.

9. The cultivation of "any cannabis plant" is prohibited and made an offence under sub-clause (b) of Section 8 of the NDPS Act . Further, it is imperative to mention Section 20 of the NDPS Act , which discusses the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Section 20 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:-

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.-

Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,-

(a)cultivates any cannabis plant; or

(b)produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable-

(i)where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees

(ii)where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),—

(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top