In NDPS cultivation cases, the recovery of full plants (including roots and mud) rather than just flowering tops may not constitute a substantial quantity, making the accused eligible for bail, especially after the charge-sheet is filed and in the absence of criminal antecedents.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11193034250276 of 2025 registered with Lathi Police Station, District: Amreli for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(a)(i) and 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicant having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of the allegation levelled against, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. The present application is vehemently objected to by learned APP on behalf of respondent- State by submitting that looking to the nature of offence as coming out from the FIR, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR including charge-sheet papers as well as order passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.

7. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(i) The allegation being that the applicant was transacting in contraband ganja and whereas it would appear that the present is a case of the applicant allegedly cultivating the contraband in question.

(ii) This Court has considered the fact that while the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS would not apply, yet, this Court has also considered the fact that while recovery is of around 155 kilograms, the recovery was of the full plant, including the stem, roots, mud, leaves, etc., and whereas there is no specific weight of the flowering tops, etc., of the plants in question.

(iii) This Court has also considered that the present applicant is in custody since 15.11.2025, the charge- sheet having been filed by the Investigating Officer and the applicant having no other antecedents, under the NDPS Act or under the IPC.

(iv) Considering the above, more particularly considering the quantity, which is around 155 kilograms, not being a substantial quantity when it comes to cultivation, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

8. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, thi