The prohibition on granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for offences involving 'commercial quantity' does not apply to the cultivation of cannabis plants, as the statute does not prescribe a threshold for commercial quantity under its relevant penal provision, Section 20(a).

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.0054/2026 dated 28.03.2026 registered at the Police Station Karwar, District Jodhpur City East, 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 the present case while alleging that the petitioner was cultivating cannabis plants in his agricultural fields and that 404 such plants, weighing 34.655 grams, were recovered. Counsel reiterates that the petitioner has been wrongly roped into the case and further submits that the petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents.

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 harv