[2026:RJ-JP:32770] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12051/2026 CNR: RJHC020730362026 | URN: CRLMB / 22170U / 2026 Ravi Jat S/o Bhanwararam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Piprali, Police Station Nawa, District Didwana-Kuchaman. (Accused Presently Confined In Sub Jail Sambharlake). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonia Gill Mr. Ashish Kumar Gill Ms. Swanee Kanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/08/2026 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Ravi Jat S/o Bhanwararam seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.136/2025 dated 20.07.2025 registered at P.S. Mokhampura District -Jaipur Rural, for the offence under Sections 8, 20 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. She further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. She also submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (2 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 05.05.2026, and afterwards, the statements of all three witnesses were examined before the trial court. She further referred to the statement of PW1 Ramjilal, Police Constable, and submitted that in his cross- examination, he has clearly admitted a fact that there were seeds and leaves, but neither was there any flower nor fruiting top. She also referred to the statement of PW3 Shrawanlal, Police Constable, and submitted that in cross- examination, he admitted that the recovered contraband were crushed articles and same were not weigh separately. She also submitted that PW3 has admitted that neither there was any fruiting top nor flowering in the recovered article. She further referred to the statement of PW2 Sanjay Prasad (SHO and search and seizure officer), and submitted that during cross-examination, he admitted that there was no flowering or fruiting top, rather there were leaves and seeds. She also submitted that the entire evidence of important three witnesses clearly indicate that recovered article is not ganja, as definition under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel has further referred to judgment in case of Sampat Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan Bail Application No. 11901/2024, dated 23.09.2024, and submitted that in an identical case, bail has been granted by a Co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur Seat. She further referred to [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (3 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] order dated 06.04.2026 in Bail Application No. 140/2026, Mujabil versus GNCT Delhi, passed by a coordinate Bench at Delhi High Court, and submitted that in absence of flowering or fruiting top in the search memo, the recovered article cannot be treated as ganja. She also referred to order in case of Mohammad Khalid and another versus State reported in 2024 INSC 158, and submitted that when a proceeding under Section 52A of NDPS Act was delayed and no proceedings were undertaken before sending sample to FSL, then FSL report is just wastage of paper and cannot be read in evidence. She also referred to FSL report and submitted that FSL report itself indicates presence of ganja, whereas neither from the evidence on record nor from the memo, it has been proved that the recovered contraband is ganja. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, and he submitted that recovered contraband is ganja and matter is subjudice before the trial court. He submitted that an explanation in form of affidavit has been filed on behalf of Sanjay Prasad, SHO, PS Dudu and Sohel Khan, DST Jaipur Rural. He submits that as per explanation of police, the contraband article appears to be ganja, so same was recovered. He also submitted that if there is any discrepancy with regard to ganja, then the issue may be left open, and after recording satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the Court may consider grant of bail. [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (4 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 7. On the basis of information given by Sohel Khan, SI, about Scorpio No. RJ-14-UK-8817, Sanjay Prasad, SHO, PS Mokampura, Jaipur (Rural), has intercepted the vehicle, driven by Ram Narayan and a person sitting on the other side was Ravi Jat. On seizure, the police has recovered 10 gunny bags allegedly containing contraband articles. The police has found that the driver of Scorpio, Ram Narayan, and traveller Ravi Jat were illegally transporting ganja in huge quantity. After the proceeding, the police has recovered 240.170 kg of ganja and on the basis of said inventory, FIR No. 136/2025 under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act was registered on 20.07.2025 at PS Mokampura, Jaipur (Rural). After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet. Present petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 20.07.2025. Till date, three witnesses were examined by the trial court and the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. 8. We have considered the statement of PW-1 Ramjilal and in cross-examination, he has admitted as under: यह कहना सही है क क ो मादक पदा प यों व बीजयु पदा के अ को फल या फू ल नहीं ा। यह कहना सही है क बामदशुदा क ो म" फल या फू ल नहीं होने के काण हमने अलग कके नहीं ोला। 9. PW-3, Shravan Lal, in his cross-examination, has admitted as under: [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (5 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] मेे सामने जब क ो को खोला गया ो उसम" चूानुमा पदा ा। यह स(ूण कायवाही ा दस बजे से लेक सुबह ढाई बजे क चली ी। स(ूण कायवाही के दौान ामजीलाल मेे सा ही ा।यह बा सही है क मामाज जी मेे से व, पु लसकम- ह. कं ु लाशी मेे /ाा ली गयी ी। यह कहना सही है क बामदशुदा माल म" फल या फू ल नहीं होने के काण हमने चूानुमा पदा को अलग अलग कके नहीं ोला। 10. PW-2 Sanjay Prasad, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed as under: ftudks dCtk iqfyl fy;k x;kA o xkMh esa Hkjs gq, dV~Vksa ds ckjs esa nksuksas 'k[lksa ls iwNk x;k rks nksuksa us dV~Vksa esa xkatk Hkjk gksuk crk;k bl ij Hkjs gq, dV~Vksa ds i`Fkd&i`Fkd [kksy dj psd fd;k rks muesa gjs&Hkwjs&dkys iRrs] nkusnkj cht;qDr inkFkZ feykA 11. In cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted as under: ,uMhih,l ,Dr ds izko/kkuksa ds eqrkfcd xkats dh ifjHkk"kk esa nkusnkj ifRr;ka] cht;qDr Qy o Qwy vkrs gSaA tc eSusa ryk'kh ds nkSjku dV~Vks dks [kksyk rks mlesa xkats ds lHkh lClVkal ekStwn FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tks xkats dh ifjHkk"kk eSusa i=koyh esa crkbZ og eky tks tCr fd;k eSusa i=koyh esa vadu fd;k ;k ugha fd;k eq>s vkt ;g ;kn ugha gSA vt[kqn dgk fd QnZ esa eSaus fy[kk gS fd dkys Hkwjs jax dh ifRr o cht;qDr inkFkZ feyk ftldks eu Fkkukf/kdkjh o gejkgh tkCrs us ns[kk] ij[kk] lwa?kk o vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij xkatk gksuk [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (6 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] ik;k x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd i=koyh esa dgha Hkh Qy o Qwy 'kCn ugha fy[kk gqvkA eftLVªsV lkgc us baosUV~jh ds nkSjku dV~Vks esa ueh;qDr ifRr;k ik;h og esjs }kjk tCrh ds le; dkys Hkwjs jax dk chtuqek inkFkZ tks fd xkatk vafdr gSa bl fHkUurk ds laca/k esa esjs }kjk eftLVªsV lkgc dks dksbZ Hkh vkifRr ntZ ugha djokbZ x;h FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tkCrs esa lcls ofj"B iqfyl Lora= xokgku tks esjs vf/kuLFk gS muds }kjk dh x;hA ;g dguk lgh gS fd laiw.kZ eky esa Qwy cht o ifRr;k lc ,d lkFk Fks ftudks geus oSlk dk oSlk ,d lkFk gh rkSyk FkkA xkats dk ^^mijh Hkkx Qwy** tCr i=koyh dh fdlh Hkh QnZ esa vadu ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd baosUVh ds le; tks lSEiy U;k;ky; tCr'kqnk eky ls fy;s tkrs gS ogha ,Q,l,y esa Hksts tkrs gSaA 12. The definition of ganja is provided under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act and it is read as under: (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; 13. The inventory prepared by learned Magistrate clearly indicate that the contraband article is leaves, seeds and branches, and nowhere has it been mentioned that it is containing the flowering or fruiting tops. Similarly the seizure memo also indicate that recovered articles are seeds and leaves. The definition clause as mentioned hereinabove clearly indicates that ganja essentially includes flowering or fruiting tops of [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (7 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] the cannabis plant, but it explicitly excludes seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. 14. In case of Mujabil versus GNCT Delhi (supra), a coordinate Bench at Delhi High Court has considered several judgments and observed about ganja as under: The order/judgments of this Court cited by Mr. Yasin deal with similar situations, where the seized goods comprise a mixture of "flowering buds and fruiting tops" as well as other materials like leaves, stems, seeds, and stalk. The judgment in Ravina Kumari analyses the definition of "ganja" as follows: "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:- Ganja A B Cannabis Flowering C Stems Buds+ Seeds Fruiting Tops Stalks 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, [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (8 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] then the same would fall within the meaning of "Cannabis", 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 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 [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (9 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] 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 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)6, 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), [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (10 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] Bettanayaka (Supra), Ratanlal (Supra) and Ratnesh Ibrahim Khwaja Miya Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2873. Suresh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1209. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 485. Bettanayaka v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3916. Ratanlal Kharadi v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6083. 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 case of Mohammad Khalid (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered proceeding under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and observed that if not undertaken and samples were not collected in the presence of jurisdictional Magistrate, the FSL report is nothing but a wastage of paper and cannot be read in evidence. 16. A coordinate Bench has allowed the bail application of Sampat Lal Gujjar (supra), on 23.09.2024 after considering the definition of ganja. 17. Here, in this case, we have considered the explanation given by Sanjay Prasad and Sohel Khan and the evidence available on record, which we have read very carefully. The material on record, as admitted by the witnesses, clearly indicates that there is serious discrepancy about recovered contraband but at the request of learned Public Prosecutor, we are refraining ourselves from making any observation in the [2026:RJ-JP:32770] (11 of 11) [CRLMB-12051/2026] instant case, as it may affect the merits of the criminal case pending before the trial court, therefore, recording the satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, we have no option except to release the petitioner on bail. 18. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant- accused Ravi Jat S/o Bhanwararam, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 19. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 182/PREETI VALECHA