Allowed

Hanumant Arjun Pathare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Sept 2023BA/1277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an accused charged under the NDPS Act seized with cannabis plants. The court held that since the seized material included unsegregated roots, leaves, and seeds, it could not be definitively termed 'ganja' under the Act, rendering bail restrictions inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs. 1,00,000/- subject to conditions of not leaving the state, attending dates, avoiding similar activity, and not tampering with evidence.

Hanumant Arjun Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

924-BA-1277-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1277 OF 2023

¶4

Hanumant Arjun Pathare
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture
R/o Balewadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra
(Through Police Inspector,
Ambhora Police Station,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

Mr. D. K. Rajpur, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. K. S. Pati, APP for the Respondent/State

¶10

CORAM: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶11

DATE:08.09.2023

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent/State.

¶14

2. By this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.205/2022 registered with Ambhora Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Beed [in Special Case No.69/2023 pending before the Special Judge, Beed] for the offences punishable under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short ‘the Act’].

¶15

1/5

¶16

924-BA-1277-2023.odt

¶17

3.The investigation was set in motion on the information given by
Dyaneshwar Bhimraj Kuklare (Asst. Police Inspector), Ambhora
Police Station. He states that upon receipt of a secret
information that in village Balewadi, the accused persons are
cultivating ganja. A raid was arranged. On visit to the land
situated in survey no.7 within the vicinity of Balewadi village and
on inspection, it was found that, the ganja has been cultivated.
The ganja were seized and kept in 16 different sacks. It was
weighed 71 Kg and 700 gram. A panchnama was carried. In
pursuance of the aforesaid offence, the applicant has been
arrested. After due investigation, charge-sheet is also filed. The
applicant is behind the bars since 28/03/2023. His application
for grant of bail has been rejected by the Special Court vide order
dated 07/07/2023.

¶18

4.Mr. Rajput, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant would
submit that the applicant is not owner of the field from where
the alleged recovery of cannabis plants is made. He would
submit that the land stands in the name of his father. By inviting
attention of this Court to the spot panchnama, he would submit
that, the plants along with roots and seeds are uprooted and
those are seized. He would therefore submit that in absence of
segregation of the various parts of plants, it cannot be said that,
the seized material is ganja within the meaning of provisions of
the Act. He would therefore submit that the bar under Section
37 of the Act could not attract in the facts of the present case.
The further detention of the applicant would not be necessary.
Hence, applicant is entitled to grant the bail.

¶19

2/5

¶20

924-BA-1277-2023.odt

¶21

5. Learned APP however vehemently opposes the bail application. He would submit that the large quantity of 70 kgs has been seized from the field of the applicant. The seized quantity of the ganja is commercial in nature. The bar under Section 37 of the Act would attract in such cases to the applicant. Hence, he urge to dismiss the application.

¶22

6. Having considered the submissions advanced, apparently, FIR and seizure panchnama depict that police have seized the plants of cannabis along with its roots and soil. Even in the inventory certificate by learned Magistrate at Beed dated 12/12/2023 depicts that there was no segregation of the plants, leaves and other parts of the cannabis tree. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the definition of the ganja under the Act, which states as under:

¶23

“ 2. Definition: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires : -

¶24

(i) …. … …

¶25

(ii) … … …

¶26

(iii) cannabis (hemp)” means :

¶27

(a) … … …

¶28

(b) ganja, that is, the flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant
(excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by
whatever, name they me be known or designated”

¶29

7. Looking to the definition as provided under Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act, the flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by tops can be considered as ganja. Apparently, in the present case, the plants were uprooted from the roots and those were weighing approximately 70 kgs. There was no segregation to find out exact quantity of contraband substance. This Court. in case of

¶30

3/5

¶31

924-BA-1277-2023.odt

¶32

Hari Mahadu Valse Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Bail Application
No.2299/2019] dated 29/09/2021 and in case of Popat
Goverdhan Nagode Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Bail
Application No.1986/2022] dated 03/01/2023, discussed the
aforesaid provisions of the Act in similar situation where there
was no segregation of flowering buds from the pieces of stalks
stems, leaves and seeds and recorded that in absence of
segregation, the substance cannot be termed as ganja within the
meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act. Perusal of inventory
certificate along with spot panchnama, in the present case,
depicts that no attempt is made to segregate the substances. In
that view of the matter, bar under Section 37 of the Act would
not attract. The case is made out to grant the bail. Hence, the
following order:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The applicant, namely, Hanumant Arjun Pathare be released on bail i in connection with Crime No.205/2022 registered with Ambhora Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Beed [in Special Case No.69/2023 pending before the Special Judge, Beed] for the offences punishable under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakhs only) on the following conditions:

¶36