[2025:RJ-JP:45700] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14389/2025 1. Gangaram S/o Nandlal, R/o Uchavad, Police Station Bapcha Baran (Accused Presently Confined At Sub Jail Chhabra District Baran). 2. Sambhudayal S/o Nandlal, R/o Uchavad, Police Station Bapcha Baran (Accused Presently Confined At Sub Jail Chhabra District Baran). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14670/2025 Surendra Yogi S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mehrawata, Police Station Kishanganj, Baran. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Baran). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14671/2025 Sonu Yogi S/o Jagdish, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gamchana, Police Station Chhipabadaud, Baran. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Baran). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14672/2025 Ramlal S/o Ramcharan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nath Mohalla, Kavai, Police Station Baran. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus [2025:RJ-JP:45700] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14389/2025] State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhim Singh Meena Ms. Bhawna Sharma Ms. Rajni Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Judgment / Order 13/11/2025 1. The petitioners have preferred these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.375/2025 registered at Police Station-Chhabra, District-Baran for the offences under Sections 8 and 20 of NDPS Act. 2. Since all these bail applications have arisen from common order, hence, they are being decided by this single order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, Gangaram and Sambhudayal. The only allegation against them is that they supplied ganja to other co-accused. Importantly, there are no call records, financial transactions, or any direct evidence linking them to the alleged supply. In respect of the accused-petitioners Surendra Yogi, Sonu [2025:RJ-JP:45700] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14389/2025] Yogi, and Ramlal, it is submitted that the total recovered quantity of ganja, as per the seizure memo, is 23.380 kg jointly which is marginally above the commercial quantity while the individual recovery from each accused in three separate plastic bags, is below the commercial quantity. Hence, rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. At the time of weighing, the measurement was taken along with seeds and leaves that too in wet state, which inflates the total weight to commercial quantity. It is natural that the weight will certainly decrease in dry state resulting the weight of contraband below the commercial quantity. He again submits that as per Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 ganja means, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops). 5. In the present case, as per the FIR, the recovered contraband included seeds and leaves not accompanied by tops. Since the Investigating Officer included non-ganja parts of the plant in the weight that too in wet state, hence, the calculation of the contraband quantity is contrary to the provisions of law. Consequently, the actual weight of ganja is below the commercial quantity at the threshold, and the case cannot attract the presumptions under the NDPS Act for commercial-level trafficking. Petitioners are behind the bars since 17.10.2025 without any criminal past. The trial of the cases may take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody, hence, the bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:45700] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14389/2025] 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications. 7. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that recovered weight of contraband is marginally above commercial quantity which has been taken including the seeds and leaves that too in wet state but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners-Gangaram S/o Nandlal, Sambhudayal S/o Nandlal, Surendra Yogi S/o Kanhaiyalal, Sonu Yogi S/o Jagdish and Ramlal S/o Ramcharan shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance before that Court on all the dates till conclusion of the trial. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/33-36