Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86398 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16491 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Chandra Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Srivastava,Kumar Vikrant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Kumar Vikrant, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.K.Rai, learned A.G.A.Ist, for the State and perused the records. This is a second Bail Application on behalf of the applicant Vijay Chandra Maurya, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2024 under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Police Station-Handia, District-Prayagraj. The First Bail Application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 19336 of 2024. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was accused of growing opium plant over 0.1140 Hectare out of 0.5530 Hectare of Arazi No. 109. A total of 1500 plants and 1718 fruits were recovered and upon weighing the same on the spot, the recovered plant including fruit was found to be 136.340 Kilogram. Learned counsel has argued that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 15.03.2024. it is further argued that the bail to the applicant was denied on two counts i.e. the quantity of 136.340 Kilogram Opium plant and fruits being more than the commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act being attracted to the case. Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the Notification specifying Small quantity and commercial quantity appended to the N.D.P.S. Act, issued in exercise of powers conferred by clauses (vii a) and (xxiii a) of Section 2 of the N.D.P.S. Act particularly to the Note 3 thereof to submit that small quantity and commercial quantity with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately and is covered under clause (C) of Section 18 of the Act. It is also argued that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not apply. I have given my ancious thoughts to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. The recovery from the applicant is opium poppy. Opium poppy has been described in Section 2 (xvii)- "Opium Poppy" means-- (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act; Opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, declared to be opium poppy for the purpose of this Act." From the aforesaid definition it is clear that plant of species Papaver somniferum L is covered by definition of Opium Poppy. Opium plants which are seized by police will fall within definition of Opium Poppy. As per section 18 of the Act, it contravention is in relation to cultivation of opium poppy of small quantity then penalty prescribed is R.I. for a term of one year with fine. If contravention involves commercial quantity then penalty is not less than 10 years and fine and in other cases penalty prescribed is R.I. upto 10 years. Notification is given in NDPS Act specifying small and commercial quantity. Entry 92, 93, and 110 is in respect of opium. No entry is made in respect of Opium poppy. Commercial and small quantity is not prescribed in said table since small and commercial quantity is not prescribed for Opium poppy and cultivation of Opium plants is covered under Section 18 (c), therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be attracted in the case. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Vijay Chandra Maurya, involved in abovesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Deepak/ Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad