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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10962

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Nupur Bhati, J
Gatu Charpota – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3138/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.S. Bhati
For the Respondents: Prem Singh Panwar (PP)

The embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding bail does not apply to the offence of cultivation of cannabis or poppy plants, as the statute and relevant notifications do not specify a commercial quantity for such cultivation.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/20 - Cultivation of cannabis plants - Bail Application - Restriction under Section 37 - Whether embargo of Section 37 is applicable to the offence of cultivation of cannabis plants where no commercial quantity is defined? - Court held that for contravention of Section 8(b) involving cultivation, the legislation does not define a commercial quantity and the punishment is prescribed under Section 20(a)(i) - Consequently, the stringent provisions of Section 37 are not attracted in cases of cultivation where quantity is not defined as commercial - Accused having no prior criminal antecedents and considering the lengthy trial process, bail was granted. (Paras 4, 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 62, was arrested for allegedly cultivating cannabis plants (36.32 kgs) on his agricultural field. He moved for bail, contending that he was falsely implicated and that the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, specifically regarding cultivation, does not attract the rigor of Section 37.

Findings of Court:
The court found that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for offences involving commercial quantities as well as specific offences like Section 19, 24, or 27A, is not applicable here because the cultivation of cannabis plants is punishable under Section 20(a)(i) and does not fall under the 'commercial quantity' designation as per the Act's notification scheme.

Issues: Whether the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail in cases involving the alleged cultivation of cannabis plants where no binary of small/commercial quantity is defined for that specific act of cultivation.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision of Section 37 regarding the prohibition of bail does not apply to the offence of cultivation of cannabis plants because the statute does not prescribe a commercial quantity threshold for cultivation, unlike for possession of drugs, and thus the court maintains the discretion to grant bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of bail application for cannabis cultivation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. non-applicability of section 37 bail restrictions in cultivation offences. (Para 3 , 4)
3. discretionary grant of bail citing lack of prior antecedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS who has been arrested in connection with the FIR No.266/2025 dated 17.09.2025 registered at the Police Station Garhi District Banswara for the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case while alleging that the petitioner has cultivated cannabis (ganja) plants, weighing 36.32 kgs, in the agricultural field belonging to him.

3. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the order of this Court dated 01.05.2025 passed in SBCRLMB No.5293/2024 : “ Vala Ram v. State of Rajasthan ”, Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:

“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 between cultivation of fennel plants. Around 743 poppy plants were recovered from the agricultural field. The petitioner was arrested and after usual investigation, he was charge-sheeted for committing offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act.

6. A perusal of the record revealing that petitioner is a Khatedar tenant of Khasra Nos. 61, 62, 65 and 66 ad measuring 11.1864, 0.1897, 1.5302, 1.2773 hector at the Village Gundagiri, District Pali. A copy of the Jamabandi revealing that the crops of fennal, barley, gram, wheat and cow fodder were cultivated in the field.

7. It is further revealing that the opium poppy plants were scattered in the field at several places. A plea of water scattering, dispersion and spontaneous growth has been raised which could not be ignored in view of the number of plants commensurate to the total land area. However, this Court is not giving any finding on this fact. In Khasra No.61 ad measuring 11.7864 hectors, there are several other khatedar tenants with the petitioner Vala Ram and he has 1/40th share in it. A plea of joint possession of several persons and so that liability of exclusive and conscious possession cannot be fasten, has also some worth to consider. The guilty can be adjudicated only after the entire evidence is laid in the trial and appreciation of evidence is made however, at this stage the plea of innocence shall prevail in favour of the accused.

8. The petitioner is booked for offence of cultivation of poppy plants which is covered under Section 8 (b) of the NDPS Act. Section 18 of the NDPS Act makes provision for punishment of contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium. Sub-clause (b) of Section 18 prescribes punishment for small quantity. It also provides punishment for commercial quantity and all other cases are covered under Sub-clause (c). The cultivation of opium poppy plant would fall under the category (c) of Section 18 of the NDPS Act. No specific quantity of plants are defined in Clause (c) of Section 18 of the NDPS Act. This Court has dealt with the issue related to the present bail application being SBCRLM4thB No.6894/2022 in the case of Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 25.05.2022. The relevant paras are being reproduced as under:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the police received information that illegal opium is beingcultivated on a land measuring about 110x57 feet and that the cultivation is becoming ripe and is nearing the stage of harvesting. Police officials went to the spot and found a 4-metre mud boundary encapsulating the crops of opium and plants of chicory and fennel were planted on either sides of the opium cultivation. The Halka Patwari present at the spo

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