Order

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No.50/2026 registered with the Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar for offence under Sections 8 and 18 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

2. As per the prosecution, on 18.02.2026, acting upon a secret information, the S.H.O. Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar, along with his team reached behind the Petrol Pump at Dug Chaumahla Road, and upon a search being made, found 27 green plants of Opium growing illegally therein. The police team thereupon uprooted the said plants and upon weighing them, found them to be a total of 8.270 Kgs. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is covered under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, which is punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel further submits that since in the present case, the police had recovered Opium plants, the punishment for cultivation of the same would fall under the Sub-clause (c) of Section 18 of the NDPS Act, as no commercial or small quantity has been prescribed for Opium plants. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the cases of:

(i) Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.6894/2022) decided on 25.05.2022.

(ii) Kallu Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.2676/2022) decided on 27.05.2022.

5. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.02.2026 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

8. 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.”

9. 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 Opium plants, as per the notification, as stated above; and particularly since the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or involving himself in cases of similar nature in case he is 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 deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

11. In case the accused-petitioner is found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution may move application for cancellation of his bail.