Back
SANJEEV KUMAR
Angrez Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. As per the prosecution case, on 26.04.2020, the Police Station, Arnas received an information from reliable sources that an unknown person has cultivated poppy crop in his land measuring around 5/6 marlas at village Dharan, District Reasi. On the basis of the said information, FIR No. 28/2020 for offences under Sections 8/18/29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station, Arnas.
2. During investigation, the I/O along with Tehsildar visited the spot and found that the petitioners herein have cultivated the poppy crop on their land. 2.2 kg of poppy crop was found to have been cultivated by petitioner Angrez Singh, 2.6 kg by petitioner Kuldeep Singh, 2.9 kg by petitioner Narinder Singh and 2.7 kg by petitioner Jasbir Singh. The I/O prepared the samples on the spot and seizure memos were prepared in the presence of Executive Magistrate. The samples were sent to FSL Jammu for chemical analysis and the statements under Section 161 were also recorded by the I/O. The petitioners were arrested on 07.9.2020. After obtaining report from the FSL, Jammu which confirmed the existence of narcotic material, the investigation was completed and the challan presented in the Court of lear
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment are relevant considerations for bail, other factors such as the presumption of....
The court granted bail under the NDPS Act, finding no commercial quantity prescribed for cultivation and no risk of tampering with evidence.
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 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 the absence of specified commercial quantity for poppy cultivation under the NDPS Act, combined with lack of evidence tampering risk, justifies granting 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 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 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 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.
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
