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

2024 Supreme(MP) 754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL DHAGAT, J.
Vishram - Applicant
Versus 
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent 
MISC. Criminal Case No. 27835 of 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2024
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain - Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Ajit Rawat - Govt. Advocate

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.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 18, and 37 - Bail application for cultivation of opium - Court held that no specific quantities for small and commercial opium poppy cultivation are prescribed, thus Section 37 does not apply - Applicant eligible for bail. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Bail Application - The standard for bail relevant to drug offenses, particularly when quantities are not specified, allows for consideration of individual circumstances in directing bail on merits. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The applicant has been in custody since March 18, 2023, for cultivating opium plants, facing charges under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 8/18 due to being found in possession of a substantial quantity of opium poppy. Previous bail requests were denied based on merits.

Findings of Court:
The court found that since there were no specified small or commercial quantities for opium poppy in the NDPS Act, the application for bail was justified under the circumstances outlined. The applicant is to be released on bail upon providing a personal bond and complying with specified conditions.

Issues: Whether the provisions under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, apply to the cultivation of opium poppy when no commercial or small quantity is defined.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies specifically to designated quantities, and no such designation exists for opium poppy cultivation, the bail application should be allowed.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail application details. (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 2 , 3)
3. legal definition and application of ndps act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. ruling allowing bail application. (Para 7)
5. conditions and order for bail. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER :

VISHAL DHAGAT, J.

This is fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant who is in custody since 18.3.2023 relating to FIR No.108/2023 registered at Police Station Khalwa, District Khandwa (M.P.) for the offences under Section 8 /18 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant was found to be cultivating opium plants. He has placed reliance on order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in MCrC No.29915/2022 ( Chhogalal vs. State of M.P. ). It is submitted that in respect of cultivation of opium poppy, small quantity and commercial quantity is not specified, therefore, bar under section 37 of NDPS Act will not be applicable. Case of applicant is covered by aforesaid order passed in the case of Chhogalal (supra). In these circumstances prayer is made for release of applicant on bail.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the application for grant of bail. It is submitted that huge quantity of opium poppy have been seized from the applicant. Applicant was cultivating opium plants. Earlier bail application was dismissed on merits. No change in circumstances, therefore, application be dismissed.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Opium poppy is described in Section 2(xvii)(a) as under:-

"Opium poppy" means:

(a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and

(b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act."

6. From aforesaid definition it is clear that plant of the species Papaver somniferum L is covered by definition of Opium poppy. Opium plants which are seized by police will fall within definition of Opium poppy. As per section 18 of the Act, if contravention is in relation to cultivation of opium poppy of small quantity then penalty prescribed is R.I for a term of one year with fine. If contravention involves commercial quantity then penalty is not less than 10 years and fine and in other cases penalty prescribed is R.I upto 10 years. Notification is given in NDPS Act specifying small and commercial quantity. Entry 92, 93 and 110 is in respect of Opium. No entry is made in respect of Opium poppy. Commercial and small quantity is not prescribed in said table. Since small and commercial quantity is not prescribed for Opium poppy and cultivation of Opium plants is covered under Section 18 (c), therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be attracted in the case.

7. In view of aforesaid, bail application filed by applicant is allowed.

8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial.

9. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section 480 (3) B.N.S.S. as under:-

(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

(b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected and;

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

C.C. as p

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 Back to top