Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Badrilal S/o Puralal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding bail application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. inapplicability of section 37 ndps for cultivation cases. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. granting of bail with specified procedural conditions. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Badrilal S/o Puralal seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 49/2026 dated 18.02.2026 registered at P.S. Dug, District - Jhalawar, for the offence under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is charged for illicit cultivation of poppy plant, though no recovery has been
The stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are not applicable to cases involving the illicit cultivation of poppy plants, as the legis....
In cases involving the illegal cultivation of poppy plants under narcotics legislation, the restrictive bail provisions are not attracted. Courts may grant bail upon considering factors such as the c....
In cases involving the cultivation of poppy plants, the stringent bail conditions under the relevant narcotics statute are not attracted. Where the investigation is complete and the accused is no lon....
The court held that the stringent bail provisions under the relevant narcotics legislation are not attracted in cases involving the cultivation of prohibited plants. Consequently, where the investiga....
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 granted bail under the NDPS Act, finding no commercial quantity prescribed for cultivation and no risk of tampering with evidence.
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 ruled that restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when no defined quantity for commercial classification exists, allowing bail.
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
