Allowed

Kirodi S/O Shri Jagan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2025CRLMB/6712/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS for accused arrested in an NDPS case involving cannabis plant cultivation. Following earlier coordinate bench decisions holding cannabis plant falls outside Section 37 NDPS Act mandatory provisions, bail granted with bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to satisfaction of trial court.

Kirodi S/O Shri Jagan Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30828]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6712/2025

¶4

Kirodi S/o Shri Jagan, Aged About 57 Years, Kota, Police Station Mamchari, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli, District Karauli).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asad Ul Haq Nooree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

08/08/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 41/2024 registered at Police Station Mamchari, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that for the offence under Section 20 (a)(i) of NDPS Act the maximum punishment for cultivation of any cannabis plant is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may be extend to 10 years and also liable to fine. The cultivation of cannabis plant does not come within the ambit of any infringement or carrying, transporting or possessing the commercial quantity. It is also contended that according to Section

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:30828]

[CRLMB-6712/2025]

20(b) of NDPS Act whoever produces, manufactures, possesses or uses cannabis is punishable under Clause (ii) (b) subject to the quantity recovered, which may be small, intermediate or commercial quantity. It is also argued that the cannabis plant is entirely different from the cannabis and it cannot be equated with cannabis (hemp). Cannabis is defined under Section 2(iii) in which clause (a) defines charas and clause (b) defines ganja. The definition of cannabis plant is separately given under Section 2(iv) of NDPS Act. The small, intermediate and commercial quantity of charas, ganja are provided under two schedule according to the notification issued time to time by the Central Government. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2025 and the trial of the case may take considerable time, there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶20

This court in the matter of Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1107/2024 decided on 09.02.2024, after going through the judgment of coordinate Bench passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9279/2022 Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 07.07.2022 held that cannabis plant does not come within the purview of mandatory provisions as enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and after going through the exhaustive definition of cannabis plant and cannabis provided under the NDPS

[2025:RJ-JP:30828]

[CRLMB-6712/2025]

(3 of 3)

Act, this court deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Kirodi S/o Shri Jagan, in connection with FIR No. 41/2024 registered at Police Station Mamchari, District Karauli shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes 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 Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

ashu /128

Kirodi S/O Shri Jagan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirodi S/O Shri Jagan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvej Alias Pabbi S/O Juhru Vs State of Rajasthan

Mijaj Urf Mijju S/O Deenu Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakeel Mohammad S/O Iqbal Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Mubarik S/O Samsu Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak S/O Mahendersingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Arun Das S/O Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan