[2025:RJ-JD:32424]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8313/2025 Saka Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Bhagwa, Police Station Siwana, Tehsil Siwana, District Balotra, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Jalore)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

23/07/2025

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.21/2025, registered at Police Station Bishangarh, District Jalore, for the offences under Sections

8/17 and 18 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely a helper and that the opium poppy plants were being cultivated on agricultural land belonging to one Masra Ram, which was being cultivated by Jagdish.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Valaram Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SBCRLMB Nos.5293/2024 and in case of Sohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, passed in SBCRLMB Nos.2687/2025, while taking into consideration Section 18 of the NDPS Act, have held that in such cases, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. The relevant portion of said orders are reproduced as under:

“In SBCRLMB No.2687/2025, order dated 04.03.2025:-

“xxxxxx 7. This Court is conscious of the S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19.10.2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt.II Section 3(ii) dated 19.10.2001 and Note no.3 appended to the table thereto, which provides :

“3. “Small Quantity” and “Commercial Quantity” with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately as the offence in this regard is covered under clause (c) of section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.”

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that since the offence in the present case is not punishable under Sections 19, 24 and 27A and neither any commercial quantity has been prescribed for the cultivation of poppy plants as per the notification as stated above; and particularly since the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioners tampering with the evidence or involving themselves in cases of similar nature in case they are enlarged on bail, therefore the embargo contained in Section 37 is not applicable in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Xxxxxxxx”

In SBCRLMB No.5293/2024, order dated 01.05.2024:-

“xxxxxx 5. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receiving a secret information when the police party reached at the agricultural field of the petitioner Vala Ram it was found that some plants of the species of papaver, Somnife rum-L commonly known as opium poppy were cultivated in betweenrdSimilar consideration in detail has been made by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan bail application being SBCRLMB No.9279/2022 decided on 07.07.2022.

The para Nos. 4 & 5 are reproduced here under: -

“4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. i) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was cultivating ganja plants in his field and the quantity of the recovered plants is well above the commercial limit specified for contraband ganja. Section 2 of the NDPS Act contains the definitions and clause (iii) of the same defines what "cannabis (hemp)" means, through three sub- clauses. The sub-clause (b) of clause (iii) defines 'ganja' as"the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seed