Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banshilal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23886) on 16 May, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:23886]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5474/2025
Banshilal S/o Moga, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Khunta Mundari,
Anandpuri, Ps Anandpuri, Dist. Banswara. (At Present Lodged In
Jail Banswara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria with
Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 16/05/2025
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.62/2025 dated 28.03.2025, registered at Police Station Anandpuri, District Banswara, for the offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several plants of 'Ganja' were recovered and found to be cultivated by the petitioner which weighed around 96 kgs. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon judgments of this Court passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9279/2022 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP), SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.538/2023 (Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP), SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4883/2025 (Ladu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan through (Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 05:39:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:23886] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-5474/2025] PP) SB Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.6376/2024 (Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP) and SB Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No.8683/2023 (Nandlal @ Nand Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP), SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3737/2025 (Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP) wherein, this Court has enlarged the accused-petitioners on bail while taking into consideration the fact that embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not be attracted to such offence. He also submits that as the whole plants were weighed without removing the stems, roots, leaves etc., he thus, urges, that the present petitioner shall also be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record.
5. This Court finds that the Notification issued in this regard that specifies small and commercial quantity for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances i.e S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19th October, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II Sec. 3 (ii) dated 19th October, 2001 and the commercial quantity specified therein for 'Ganja' is, 20 kgs. For the purpose of determining the total weight of the recovered contraband 'Ganja' in the present case, the whole plants were taken into consideration, including the seeds, roots, stems and leaves, along with the soil as well, whereas only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plants should have been taken into consideration for weighing of contraband 'Ganja' as per the definition clause under (Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 05:39:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:23886] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-5474/2025] NDPS Act, as there was no bifurcation of seeds, roots, stems, leaves and soil before weighing the recovered contraband. Thus, it is safe to infer that the actual weight of ganja so recovered would be less than the claimed weight and cannot be said to be of commercial quantity.
6. Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act stipulates that the cultivation of "any cannabis plant" is prohibited. Furthermore, Section 20 of the NDPS Act outlines the punishment for contravention in relation to cultivation of cannabis plant which is reproduced hereunder:
"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.- Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,-
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable-
(i)where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees
(ii)where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),-- (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years (Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 05:39:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:23886] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-5474/2025] but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
6.1 On a bare persual of the aforementioned Section, this Court finds that contravention in relation to cultivation of cannabis plant is covered under Section 20(a) and the punishment for contravention of the same is prescribed without any specification of quantitities. Therefore, the applicable provision prescribing punishment for the offence under Section 8(b), which pertains to the cultivation of the cannabis plant, would be Section 20(a)(i)
7. Grant of bail for offences stipulated in the NDPS Act is prohibited by the provision contained under Section 37 of the Act.
Section 37 of the Act states that any person who is accused of an offence under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and of an offence involving commercial quantity cannot be granted bail. In the present case, neither the offence in the present case is covered by Sections 19, 24 or 27A of the NDPS Act and as there was no bifurcation of seeds, roots, stems, leaves and soil before weighing the recovered contraband 'Ganja' it is safe to infer that the actual weight of 'Ganja' so recovered would be less than the claimed weight and cannot be said to be of commercial quantity. Therefore, it can safely be inferred from the above observations that the petitioner need not face the rigors of Section 37 with regard to provision of bail.
8. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case and keeping in mind the dicta contained in the aforementioned judgments and looking to the fact that the trial (Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 05:39:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:23886] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-5474/2025] will consume time this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner namely Banshilal S/o Moga in relation to the F.I.R. No.62/2025 dated 28.03.2025, registered at Police Station Anandpuri, District Banswara, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made herein are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The learned Trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J SURABHII/173- (Downloaded on 16/05/2025 at 05:39:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)