Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VISHAL DHAGAT
Vishram – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 ap
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 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 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 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 granted bail under the NDPS Act, finding no commercial quantity prescribed for cultivation and no risk of tampering with evidence.
The lack of minimum sentence prescribed under the NDPS Act and the turning hostile of seizure witnesses influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
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 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.
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
