$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4488/2025 & CRL.M.A. 34745/2025 ABID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 30.07.2026 1. By way of the instant application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.91/2025, dated 12.02.2025 registered at police station Narela, Delhi 2025 under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985 [“NDPS Act”]. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He submits that the subject contraband has been deliberately planted as the said recovery was effected from the house of co-accused namely Tabassum and no videography or photography was done by the respondents at the time of recovery. According to him, the alleged recovery is marginally higher than the intermediary quantity. The entire recovery includes leaves and stalks/stems which do not fall within the definition of contraband materials. The actual This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 weight of the contraband material would be mush lessor than the shown seized quantity. There is no criminal case against the applicant. The applicant has already suffered more than 17 months’ incarceration. Out of 29 witnesses, only one witness has been examined. 3. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the total quantity of contraband recovered is 20.466 kg of Ganja, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that the material collected during the course of investigation clearly establishes the complicity of the applicant and there is no reasonable possibility of his acquittal. The prosecution has also relied upon CCTV footage allegedly showing the applicant and co-accused Rushad handling the bags containing the contraband. Apart from the same, the mobile phone recovered from the applicant is also stated to be an incriminating circumstance establishing his involvement in the alleged offence. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. According to the prosecution, acting upon prior information, a raid was conducted on 12.02.2025, during which the applicant along with three other co-accused persons was found in possession of 20.466 kg of Ganja. The investigation was conducted and the chargesheet was filed. 6. The recovery involved in the present case is 20.466 kg of Ganja. Though prima facie the recovered quantity falls within the category of commercial quantity, it is only marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity of 20 kg. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the definition of “Ganja” as provided under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 “(b) Ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated;” 7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that the expression “Ganja” is confined to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. The seeds and leaves, when not accompanied by such flowering or fruiting tops, stand specifically excluded from the statutory definition of Ganja. Therefore, only such parts of the cannabis plant as fall within the ambit of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act can be taken into consideration while determining the quantity of contraband recovered. 8. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by this Court in Ravina Kumari v. The State (NCT of Delhi)1, wherein this Court, by way of a Venn diagram, explained the legislative intent underlying the definition of Ganja as contained in the NDPS Act and clarified the scope and ambit of the statutory definition. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:- “17. From the definition, it is evident that flowering buds and fruiting tops of the cannabis plant would be covered under section 2 (iii)(b) but merely leaves/seeds and stalks would not form a part of the definition of “Ganja” unless accompanied by the flowering and fruiting tops. 18. This can be represented accurately by the below Venn diagram: 19. Thus, the intention of the Legislature appears to be clear that in case of Ganja, if it is merely Category A i.e. a homogenous mixture of flowering buds and fruiting tops, then the same would fall within the meaning of “Cannabis”, 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6748 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 however, if it is merely Category B i.e. a homogenous mixture of seeds/leaves/stalks without the fruiting tops and buds, then the same would not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. 20. Though the position with respect to homogenous mixtures i.e. Category A & B is clear, there is often a conundrum surrounding the quantification of Category C, i.e. the overlap between Category A and Category B constituting the heterogenous mixtures which include both the flowering tops and fruiting buds, along with the stems/leaves and seed. 21. From the framework of the entire NDPS Act and a reading of S. 2 (iii)(b), it emerges that if the material seized is a heterogenous mixture/Category C, constituting of Category A mixed with Category B, the placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems (Category B) would not constitute an actual part of the drug and only the actual content and weight of the narcotic drug (Category A) would be relevant for determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity. 22. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Kunal Dattu Kadu (Supra) and Shri Sandip Ashok Raut (Supra) and it was held that to ascertain whether the material seized was Ganja, it will have to be ultimately ascertained whether the flowering and fruiting are accompanied by the seeds and leaves as the weight of these seeds/leaves/stems, has to be excluded. 23. Axiomatically, the weight of seeds/stalks and stems (Category B) should be excluded while calculating the actual quantity (Only Category A) recovered.” 9. A similar view has consistently been taken by this Court in several of its decisions, including Ashok Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)2, Manjay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, Mujabil v. GNCT of Delhi4, and Pawan Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, amongst others. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the alleged recovery is of 20.466 kg of material stated to be Ganja. The seizure memo, recorded vide DD No. 112 dated 12.02.2025, Police Station Narela, Outer North District, notes that: “Each of the parcels was found wrapped with khaki-coloured tape. Upon examination, each parcel was found to contain a brownish and 2 BAIL APPLN. 2962/2025; Dated 21.11.2025 3 BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025; Dated 19.03.2026 4 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1551 5 BAIL APPLN. 1097/2026; Dated 21.07.2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 green coloured, foul-smelling, dry grassy substance, which, on the basis of its colour, odour and physical characteristics, appeared to be ganja.” 11. If the test laid down by this Court in Ravina Kumari (supra) is applied to the facts of the present case, it would be difficult, at this stage, to conclude that the entire recovered substance was accompanied by the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant so as to qualify as Ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. Significantly, the seizure memo does not specifically record that the entire contraband comprised flowering or fruiting tops. Rather, it generally describes the recovered material as a “dry grassy substance”, a description which may encompass leaves and other parts of the cannabis plant not accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops. Such parts are expressly excluded from the statutory definition of Ganja under the Act. Consequently, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the entire recovered material would qualify as Ganja for the purpose of determining the quantity of contraband under the NDPS Act. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it prima facie appears that the weight of the contraband, as statutorily defined under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, may be less than the prescribed commercial quantity of 20 kg. In such circumstances, a substantial doubt arises, at this stage, regarding the applicability of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, whether the embargo contained under Section 37 of the Act would be attracted is a matter requiring consideration during trial upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. 13. In Ravina Kumari (supra), Mujabil (supra) and Pawan Yadav This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 (supra), where the alleged recoveries were 23.465 kg, 21.950 kg, and 21.020 kg respectively, this Court adopted a similar approach. It was observed that where a prima facie discrepancy exists with regard to whether the entire recovered substance answers the statutory definition of Ganja, and consequently the actual weight of the contraband, the benefit of such uncertainty would enure to the accused at the stage of consideration of bail. In such circumstances, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were held not to be attracted for the purpose of deciding the application for regular bail, leaving the issue to be conclusively determined during trial upon appreciation of the evidence 14. Reference may be made to paragraphs 5, 24 and 26 to 30 of the judgment in Ravina Kumari (supra). The relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow: “5. It is pleaded that there is alleged recovery of 23.456 kg Ganja from her carry bag, included the leaves and stalks/ stems which does not fall in the definition of contraband material. Thus, without the stems, the actual quantity of Ganja would only be mere 3.465 Kg., i.e. much lesser than the commercial quantity of 20 kgs. 24. Evidently, the present case is of a recovery falling within Category C. The Chargesheet records that when the Petitioner/Ravina was apprehended, blue coloured plastic polythene bag was recovered from her which contained grass-like flowery-leafy material along with its stems, which appeared to be “Ganja” and was seized vide the seizure memo. On weighing, the recovered Ganja on the electronic weighing machine, the total weight of the quantity recovered, was about 24.145 Kg. 26. Pertinently, the recovered quantity of about 24.145 Kg was just 4.145 kgs more than the commercial quantity. Since, the entire substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves were weighed together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops, the quantity of 'Ganja' seized from the Applicant may be less than commercial quantity so as to attract Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The weight of actual Ganja recovered is a matter of trial. 27. It has been consistently held that if there is a prima facie discrepancy in what was seized and what was analysed and weighed and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of offences This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 dealing in commercial quantity. Consequently, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for grant of regular bail, would not become applicable as has been held in the case of Ibrahim Khwaja Miya Sayyed (Supra). 28. In the case of Suresh Kumar (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court gave benefit to the accused under Section 20(b)(C) to 20 (b) (ii)(B) by observing that the weight of the contraband was not precise and the actual quantity of Ganja seized could not be determined because the FSL reflected that seeds, which do not come within the definition of Ganja, were weighed along with the flowering and fruiting tops. Thus, when there is a doubt on the actual amount of recovery of contraband, then this unexplained discrepancy would result in a benefit accruing in favour of the bail applicant. 29. Similar observations have been made in the case of Rajesh Sharma (Supra), Bettanayaka (Supra), Ratanlal (Supra) and Ratnesh (Supra). 30. In light of the above discussion, it is settled that if there is the discrepancy in weight, as in the present case, the same would be a matter of trial.” 15. In the present case, the alleged recovery is only marginally above the commercial quantity. The seizure memo merely describes the recovered substance as a “dry grassy substance” and does not specifically record that the entire recovered material comprised the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Whether the entire recovered substance falls within the statutory definition of Ganja is, therefore, a matter of trial. 16. Bearing in mind overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the applicant's incarceration for more than 17 months, the prima facie doubt regarding the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed, and that the applicant is not stated to be involved in any other criminal case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail 17. Needless to observe, the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated during This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45 the course of trial. 18. Accordingly, the applicant be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 19. Bail application stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 30, 2026/p/SA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 10:46:45