Back
Mixture of leaves and seeds not '' under : Delhi High Court grants bail
In a significant ruling clarifying the definition of "" under the (), the granted to Manish Kumar Prasad, an accused in a drug recovery case. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the bail application, held that a substance comprising a mixture of leafy, seed-bearing, and grass-like material does not fall within the statutory definition of , thereby casting doubt on the applicability of the stringent .
The Arrest and Recovery
The case originated from FIR No. 537/2025 registered at on . According to the prosecution, police on patrol duty intercepted a Scooty TVS Ntorq carrying two individuals, including the applicant Manish Kumar Prasad and co-accused Ravi Kishan Kumar Ram. A search allegedly led to the recovery of 21.20 kilograms of what was initially described as "." The applicant was arrested the same day and has remained in since.
What Constitutes ''?
The core legal question revolved around the definition of "" under , which restricts the term to the "" of the cannabis plant. The prosecution relied on the recovered quantity to invoke Section 37, which imposes strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities. However, the defence challenged the very classification of the seized material.
Defense Challenges Definition
, counsel for the applicant, argued that the chargesheet itself revealed that the recovered substance was not pure but a mixture containing leaves, seeds, and grass-like matter. This, he contended, did not satisfy the legal definition of , making the threshold inapplicable and thus irrelevant to the bail consideration.
Court Finds Substance Outside Legal Definition
The court carefully examined the chargesheet and observed that the recovered quantity
"not only comprised '
', but was a mixture of '
' as well."
Justice Banerjee noted that such a mixture does not fall within the definition of '
' as provided under
. Consequently, the applicability of Section 37 was deemed "doubtful."
The court further reasoned that since the mixture contained a significant proportion of non- components, the composition of was likely to be well below the threshold prescribed for .
Key Observations
"as apparent from the chargesheet, the recovered quantity not only comprised ' ', but was a mixture of ' ' as well, which do not fall within the definition of ' ' as provided under . Thus, the applicability of , in the present facts and circumstances, is doubtful."
The court also took note of the applicant's prolonged incarceration, stating:
"the applicant has been since 01.09.2025 i.e. more than one year as on date and his conduct is 'Satisfactory' as per the ."
Addressing the prosecution's concern about the applicant's involvement in another FIR under the , the court cited the 's decision in
Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
(2020) 11 SCC 648, holding that
"mere involvement in other offences cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail."
Bail Granted with Safeguards
Allowing the application, Justice Banerjee directed the release of Manish Kumar Prasad on upon furnishing a of ₹20,000 with one of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court imposed several conditions: the applicant must not leave the State of Bihar without prior permission, surrender his passport within three days, provide his mobile number to the investigating officer, report to the nearest police station in Bihar every month during the first week, and refrain from any criminal activity or contact with prosecution witnesses.
The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail adjudication and would not influence the merits of the trial. The order was passed on , and copies were directed to be sent to the trial court and jail superintendent for compliance.
