[2025:RJ-JP:4765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1264/2025 Raju S/o Parasram, R/o Kalam Kua, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota.) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/02/2025 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.237/2024 registered at Police Station Ranpur, District Kota City for offence under Section 8/20 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. He submits that the cultivation of "any cannabis plant" is prohibited and made an offence under Section 8 of the NDPS Act whereas Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act discusses punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. He submits that as per the prosecution case, the petitioner was cultivating ganja plants in his field and total eight plants (total weight – 15.8 Kgs) were recovered from this field. He contends [2025:RJ-JP:4765] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1264/2025] that for the purpose of determining the total weight of the recovered contraband ganja, 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 for weighing of contraband ganja as per the defining clause under NDPS Act. However, there was no bifurcation of seeds and leaves from the flowering or fruiting tops before weighing the recovered contraband. The commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kgs. He submits that the alleged recovered Ganja is below commercial quantity. 3. It is argued that since the alleged recovered contraband Ganja is below commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the present case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents of similar nature. He is in custody since his date of arrest whereas trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application but fairly concedes that no other case under NDPS Act has been registered against the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Contravention of provisions of the NDPS Act by cultivation of any cannabis plant is covered in clause (a) of Section 20 and contravention by production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import inter-state, export inter-state or use of cannabis is covered under clause (b) of Section 20. For the [2025:RJ-JP:4765] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1264/2025] contravention contained in clause (b), punishments have been particularised as per the quantities, namely small, intermediate and commercial quantities in sub-clause (i) but for the contravention contained in clause (a), maximum punishment for a term of ten years rigorous imprisonment has been prescribed without any specification of quantities. Thus, the corresponding punishment-prescribing provision for offence under Section 8(b) relating to cannabis plant, would be Section 20(a)(i). 7. As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, any person who is accused of an offence under Section 19, 24 or 27A and and of an offence involving commercial quantity cannot be granted bail. Neither the offence in the present case is covered by Section 19, 24 or 27A of the NDPS Act nor does the recovered ganja fall in the category of commercial quantity. 8. 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 looking to the weight of the recovered contraband (cannabis plants) and the manner in which, same was weighed; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act as well as looking to the custody period of the petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 9. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Raju S/o Parasram 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 [2025:RJ-JP:4765] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1264/2025] 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The observation made herein is just for decision of this bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/216