[2025:RJ-JP:6003] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1011/2025 Chhuttan Lal S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kuagaon, P.S. Bamanwas District Gangapurcity. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Gangapurcity). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Pal Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/02/2025 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.56/2024 registered at Police Station Bamanwas, District Gangapur City for offence 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 35.650 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 discusses the punishment for contravention in relation to opium [2025:RJ-JP:6003] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1011/2025] 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 of similar nature. He is in custody since 01.01.2025 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 but fairly concedes that no other case under NDPS Act has been registered against the petitioner. 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 of similar [2025:RJ-JP:6003] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1011/2025] nature under the NDPS Act; looking to the custody period of the petitioner and non-application of rigour of 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- Chhuttan Lal S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, 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 once in every three months in the concerned police station. 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 CHARU SONI /280