Allowed

Lalchand S/O Chauthmal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 May 2026CRLMB/6753/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application for alleged illegal cultivation of opium plants (10.610 kg) recovered from the petitioner's field under NDPS Sections 8/18. Court held Section 37 embargo inapplicable since no commercial or small quantity is prescribed for opium plant cultivation per the 2001 notification, and granted bail on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, to satisfy the trial court and attend all hearings.

Lalchand S/O Chauthmal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:19940]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 6753/2026

¶4

Lalchand S/o Chauthmal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Kholi Police Station Ghatoli, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub- District Jail, Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

12/05/2026

¶13

The petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No. 66/2026 registered with the Police Station Ghatoli, District Jhalawar for offence under Section 8 and 18 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

¶14

As per the prosecution, on 23.02.2026, acting upon a secret information, the S.H.O. Police Station Ghatoli, District Jhalawar, along with his team reached at the field of Lalchand, and upon a search being made, found 41 green plants of Opium growing illegally therein. The police team thereupon uprooted the said plants and upon weighing it was found to be a total of 10.610 Kg. and therefore, the accused-petitioner was arrested on the spot.

(2 of 4)

[CRLMB-6753/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:19940]

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available on record.

¶19

The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the offence allegedly committed by the accused-petitioner is covered under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, which is punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further submits that since in the present case, the Police had recovered Opium plants and the punishment for cultivation of the same would fall under Sub-clause (c) of Section 18 of the NDPS Act, as no commercial or small quantity has been prescribed for opium plants. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the cases of:

¶20

(i) Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.6894/2022) decided on 25.05.2022.

¶21

(ii) Kallu Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.2676/2022) decided on 27.05.2022.

¶22

Lastly, learned counsel submits that the accusedpetitioner is in judicial custody since 23.02.2026 and the trial of the case will take considerable long time to conclude, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶24

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:19940]

[CRLMB-6753/2026]

This Court is conscious of the S.O. 1055 (E) dated 19.10.2001 published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Pt.II Section 3(ii) dated 19.10.2001 and Note No. 3 appended to the table thereto, which provides:

¶29

“3. “Small Quantity” and “Commercial Quantity” with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately as the offence in this regard is covered under clause (c) of section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.”

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima-facie finds that since the offence in the present case is not punishable under Sections 19, 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act and neither any commercial quantity has been prescribed for cultivation of opium plants, as per the notification, as stated above; and particularly since the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or involving himself in cases of similar nature in case he is enlarged on bail, therefore the embargo contained in Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶31

This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before

(4 of 4)

[CRLMB-6753/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:19940]

that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶36

In case the accused-petitioner is found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution may move application for cancellation of his bail.

¶37

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶38

SHRUTI SHARMA /7

Lalchand S/O Chauthmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalchand S/O Chauthmal 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

Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Arvind Saini S/O Shri Birbal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Lal Bhadur Yadav and Ors. Vs Rahul Yadav

Pradeep S/O Sitaram Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Naeem Qureshi Son of Abdul Hameed, Vs State of Rajasthan