Allowed

Pothu Guruvaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2026/14373/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to two accused charged under NDPS Act for cultivating four cannabis plants in their residential premises. The court noted the investigating agency failed to weigh the plants or segregate seeds, leaves, stems and stalks from the flowering tops, rendering the total weight doubtful. Relying on precedents holding that Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act does not apply to cannabis plant recoveries and that small quantities warrant bail, the court allowed the petition subject to conditions including personal bonds, periodic appearance before SHO, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to both petitioners on personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, subject to appearance before SHO every Sunday and Wednesday for 8 weeks or till charge sheet, and standard conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS.

Pothu Guruvaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14373 of 2026

¶4

(CNR No. HBHC010604482026)

¶5

DATED: 15^th SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pothu Guruvaiah

¶8

P.Mallesh

¶9

... Petitioners-Accused Nos.1 & 2 And

¶10

The State of Telangana

¶11

... Respondent-Complainant

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in connection with Crime No.243 of 2026 of P.S. Luxettipet, Mancherial District. The offence alleged against the petitioners-A1 and A2 are punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(a)(i), 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶14

¶15

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶16

Heard Mr. Patnam Saimanideep, learned counsel for petitioners – A1 and A2 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prosecution's own case is that petitioners-A1 and A2 intended to dry and sell the leaves which fall outside the statutory definition of Ganja altogether and the ganja seed and leaves are not banned under NDPS Act. In the present case, the recovery is of four standing plants grown in the premises of a village dwelling, with no packets, no packing material, no weighing scale, no customer and no material of any kind suggesting distribution. In the present case, the weight was not determined as the Investigating Agency failed to segregate the seeds, leaves, stems/stalks and other non-contraband material from the flowering or fruiting tops and having regard to the statutory definition of ‘Ganja’ under the NDPS Act. Under these circumstances, the present application falls to be decided under the ordinary principles governing bail under Section 480 of BNSS. Section 52A of the NDPS Act requires the seizing officer to prepare an inventory of the seized narcotic substance and to make an application to the Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory, for

¶18

¶19

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶20

taking photographs in his presence and certifying them as true. In the present case, there is no application to the Magistrate, no inventory, no certified photographs and it is complete absence of compliance. The four plants are only articles in the case and their recorded heights are the only objective measurements. The record does not state consistently when the offence is said to have occurred. LW's.1 to 5 are examined on 13.08.2026. Petitioners-A1 and A2 are remanded to judicial custody on the same day. Petitioner No.1-A1 is aged about 58 years, petitioner No.2-A2 is aged about 45 years. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Alakh Ram Vs. State of U.P.¹ (2) Suresh Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan² (3) Manu Vs. State of Karnataka³ (4) Mr.Augustine Ballava Vs. The State⁴ and prayed to enlarge the petitioners-A1 and A2 on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the punishment for the offences the petitioners-A1 and A2 are charged with is 10 years. The remand report clearly states the height of the plants and the petitioners – A1 and A2 are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶22

1 (2004) 1 SCC 766

¶23

2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3297

¶24

3 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 5258

¶25

4 CRM(NDPS)/4/2026 dated 27.04.2026 of the High Court at Calcutta

¶26

¶27

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶28

G.Suresh - Sub-Inspector of Police has lodged a report before P.S. Luxettipet on 13.08.2026 stating that he received credible information about A1 and A2 who were illegally cultivating ganja plants and they are addicted to ganja, they brought ganja from Chandrapur which containing ganja seeds and they decided to cultivate cannabis plants with an intention of drying the leaves and selling them at higher prices to persons addicted to ganja in the surrounding villages for easy wrongful gain. In total four ganja plants were found at the spot all worth Rs.14,000/-. Basing on the said complaint FIR came to be registered.

¶29

Petitioners-A1 and A2 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.08.2026. Since then they are in jail.

¶30

Complaint goes to show that when first plant is measured, it is 2.2 mtrs, second plant is 2 mtrs, third plant is 1.3 mtrs, fourth plant is 1.05 mtrs and plants 1 and 2 is costing of Rs.5,000/- each and plants 3 and 4 are costing Rs.4,000/- and the total value of the plant is Rs.14,000/-.

¶31

Petitioners – A1 and A2 have filed Crl.M.P. No.563 of 2006 in Crime No.243 of 2026 for grant of bail before the Sessions Court which came to be dismissed on 25.08.2026

¶32

¶33

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶34

with an observation that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners – A1 and A2.

¶35

Petitioner counsel during the course of arguments has filed copy of the FIR No.244 of 2026 dated 13.08.2026 which is enclosed with a plan. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the houses of the petitioners-A1 and A2 with that of the plants raised there on.

¶36

In Alakh Ram¹ , Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.4

¶37

& 6 which reads as under :

¶38

“4. ….. There must be supporting evidence to prove that the accused cultivated the plant and it is not enough that few plants were found in the property of the accused. It is quite reasonable to assume that sometimes the plants may sprout up, if seeds happen to be embedded in earth due to natural process. If plants are sprouted by natural growth, it cannot be said that it amounts to cultivation...

¶39

There is no satisfactory evidence, either oral or documentary, to show that the appellant has a right over the property from which the ganja plants were recovered... Having regard to the extent of the property and the number of plants recovered from that property, it cannot be said that these plants had been the result of cultivation."

¶40

In Suresh Lal² , High Court of Rajasthan observed as under :

¶41

¶42

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶43

“As there was no bifurcation of seeds and leaves from the flowering or fruiting tops before weighing the recovered contraband and the total weight of the recovered contraband is just 2 kgs and 700 gms above the commercial quantity, it is safe to infer that the actual weight of recovered ganja would be less than the claimed weight and therefore, below the stipulated commercial quantity."

¶44

In Manu³ , High Court of Karnataka held as under:

¶45

“On perusal of the records, it is evident that 1.3 kgs of 4 ganja plants were recovered, but on perusal of the allegations the ganja plants were uprooted and were consisting of roots and wet mud and in that event the ganja plants were weighing less than 1 kg... The seized quantity is a small quantity, if wet mud and stems are separated... I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail”.

¶46

In Augustine Ballava⁴ , High Court of Calcutta held as under:

¶47

“This Court finds Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which imposes reverse burden of proof on the accused and strict rigours relating to grant of bail, does not apply to offences under Section 20 at all. Although other offences involving commercial quantity' than the Sections mentioned therein is also enumerated in Section 37(1)(b), there is no commercial quantity enumerated in this statute with regard to recovery of Cannabis plants... Thus, the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) is not attracted to the present case at all."

¶48

¶49

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶50

The complaint and the remand case diary goes to show that three months prior to the panchanama, they brought ganja from Chandrapur containing ganja seeds, after separating the seeds, they consumed the ganja, they preserved the seeds and since their earnings from agriculture work were insufficient to meet their daily needs and expenses, they decided to cultivate cannabis plant with an intention of drying the leaves and selling them at higher prices to persons addicted to ganja in the surrounding villages for easy wrongful gain. Three months back, they planted only two cannabis plaints and they regularly watered them. About one month back, they planted the remaining cannabis seeds from which two cannabis plants grew and they continued to water all the four plants. Plant Nos.3 and 4 are 1.3 mtrs and 1.05 mtrs, whereas plant No.1 is 2.2 mtrs and plant No.2 is 2 mtrs.

¶51

In Alakh Ram¹ , the facts arise out of a full-fledged trial which went to the Supreme Court.

¶52

In Suresh Lal² , the contraband is just 2 kgs 700 grams above the commercial quantity.

¶53

In Manu³ , the ganja plant is 1.3 kgs of 4 ganja plants which were recovered and the seized property is a small quantity if wet mud and stems are separated.

¶54

¶55

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶56

In Mr.Augustine Ballava⁴ , it is observed that there is no commercial quantity enumerated in this statue with regard to recovery of cannabis plant.

¶57

The plants are not weighed and they are just measured with that of the valuation mentioned there.

¶58

In the present case, investigating agency failed to segregate the seeds, leaves, stems, stalks and other noncontraband material from the flowering or fruiting tops and the total weight attributed renders doubtful.

¶59

Record does not show that the plants were weighed. Remand case diary goes to show that the respondent has examined 12 witnesses. The decisions in Manu³ , and Augustine Balla⁴ are applicable to the case on hand.

¶60

In Crl.P.No.6546 of 2023 dated 26.07.2023, this Court observed that the activities done by the petitioners therein was for self-consumption and not for sale and the statute gives certain leniency towards consumers and that the seized contraband is not a commercial quantity so as to attract the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act.

¶61

As the police has not weighed the trees, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail.

¶62

¶63

Crl.P.No.14373 of 2026

¶64

In the result, petition is allowed, petitioners-A1 and A2

¶65

are granted bail subject to the following conditions:

¶66

i. The petitioners-A1 and A2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases Cum I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mancherial.

¶67

ii. The petitioners-A1 and A2 shall appear before the concerned SHO in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., on every Sunday and Wednesday for a period of eight (8) weeks or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, as and when required.

¶68