ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered at C.R.No. 11184002210053 of 2021 with Chota Udaipur Police Station, District:- Chota Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (B) and 20 (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. As per the FIR, the present applicant alongwith one Alsing Ramabhai Rathva were cultivating the contraband Ganja in an agricultural field just behind the house of the present applicant. The contraband – Ganja in form of plants of ganja weighing 1233.462 Kilo-grams amounting to Rs. 1,23,34,620/- was recovered and a complaint under section 8 (B) and 20 (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against the present applicant.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the present applicant was arrested and he is in jail since 21.01.2021.

4. Learned advocate Mr. V. O. Joshi appearing for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence and merely because the agricultural field wherein cannabis plantation has taken place is just behind the applicant’s house, he cannot be said to have cultivated the cannabis plants. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that agricultural field, wherein the cannabis cultivation had taken place, is not in the name of the present applicant as per the revenue record.

5. Learned advocate Mr. V. O. Joshi also questioned the quantity purity of the cannabis plants by stating that different part of cannabis plants can be used for different purpose and only flowers at the top of cannabis plants can be considered to be a contraband. The quantity considered by authority is of the entire plant and therefore, the weight of the entire plants cannot be considered as contraband. By stating the aforesaid fact learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that in fact, the quantity of the contraband seized is not 1233.462 kilo-grams but is much less. Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Joshi took this Court to the definition of cannabis (hemp) and, as stated in section 2 (iii) and cannabis plant as defined in section 2 (iv). Learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that cannabis plant is different than cannabis (hemp) as cannabis (hemp) can be charas, ganja or a mixture whereas cannabis plant is totally different thing than the contraband charas and ganja and therefore, considering the fact that different part of cannabis plants also used as charas and ganja, plant itself cannot be considered while measuring the quantity of contraband.

6. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned advocate Mr. V.O. Joshi relied upon the following judgments of Bombay High Court:-

1. In the case of Santosh S/o. Ramchandra Khedkar V/s. The State of Maharashtra in Bail Application No. 211 of

2019 .

2. In the case of Raosaheb Bapurao Sawandkar V/s. The State of Maharashtra in Bail Application No.31 of 2022.

3. In the case of Daryappa Kushaba Akkiwad V/s. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Misc. Application No.

3663 of 2021.

By relying upon the aforesaid judgements, learned advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that as contraband recovered is considered to be 1233.462 kilo-grams, the aforesaid weight is excessive and when the applicant is in no way connected with the cultivation of contraband, he is required to be enlarged on bail.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi also submitted that considering the fact that there are no past antecedents in respect of the applicant, he is required to be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel for the respondent –

State submitted that the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Joshi are misconceived. The FIR is lodged against the present applicant under section 20 (1) of the NDPS which is in respect of plantations of cannabis only. Further considering the quantity of the plant which is 1233.462 kilo-grams, which is a huge quantity and some part of the plants can be u