[2025:RJ-JP:14935] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4489/2025 Rohit S/o Mamraj Saini, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Dhani Ucha Dhani Wala Police Station Thanagazi, District Alwar, At Present Gram Bhojpuri, Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotputli- Behror. (Accused In Sub Jail Behror). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 02/04/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.83/2025 registered at Police Station Naraianpur, District Kotputali-Behror for offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. As per prosecution case, opium plants weighing 15.800 Kgs were found in the filed of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The petitioner is booked for offence of cultivation of opium poppy which is covered under Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Section 18, which [2025:RJ-JP:14935] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4489/2025] discusses the punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium, prescribes punishment for small quantity in sub-clause (a), for commercial quantity in sub-clause (b) and all other cases are covered under sub-clause (c). In the present case, the penal provision applicable to the petitioner is sub-clause (c) of Section 18 as there is no specific quantity which has been defined in the Act for cultivation of opium poppy rather Note no.3 appended to the notification specifying small and commercial quantity S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19th October, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt. II dated 19th October, 2001 states that " Note 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". The embargo contained in Section 37 is not attracted as there is no question of commercial quantity in the present case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody since 19.03.2025 whereas trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; looking to the custody period of the petitioner and non-application of rigour of [2025:RJ-JP:14935] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4489/2025] Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the instant case, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Rohit S/o Mamraj Saini shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in second week of every month in the concerned local police station till trial is concluded. 8. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 9. The observation made herein is just for decision of this bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /302