Allowed

Davanapalli Mallesh, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2026CRLP/14472/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed the bail petition of an accused charged under NDPS Act for cultivating a cannabis plant. Court held Sections 37 strict laws do not apply as quantity is non-commercial and plant was unweighed. Bail granted with personal bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and reporting to SHO.

Davanapalli Mallesh, 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.14472 of 2026

¶4

(CNR No. HBHC010604492026)

¶5

DATED: 15^th SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

Davanapalli Mallesh

¶8

... Petitioner-Accused And

¶9

The State of Telangana

¶10

... Respondent-Complainant

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail who is arrayed as accused in connection with Crime No.244 of 2026 of P.S. Luxettipet, Ramagundam District. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused is punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(a)(i), 27(b) of NDPS Act.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Crl.P.No.14472 of 2026

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act apply only to offences under Sections 19, 24, 27A for the offences “involving commercial quantity”. The petitioner-accused is charged under Section 8(c) r/w 20(a)(i) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act. Hence Section 37 is not applicable. The quantity is not merely below commercial, it was never determined at all and the seized article is described only as one plant measured by height alone, no way it was taken into consideration at any stage. Prosecution’s own case is that the petitioner intended to dry and sell the leaves. Recording a confession under the label of a seizure panchanama does not render an otherwise inadmissible confession admissible. At the threshold, the record does not even settle which narcotic substance is alleged. The present application falls to be decided under the ordinary principles governing bail under Section 480 of BNSS where bail is the rule and jail is the exception and the Court is not required to record the twin satisfaction under Section 37 at all. The investigating officers own rough sketch at Column number 10 of the Crime Details Form shows the scene of offence in an open unwalled patch of land. Major portion of the investigation is completed, in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Alakh Ram Vs.

¶17

¶18

Crl.P.No.14472 of 2026

¶19

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 petitioner-accused on bail.

¶20

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner-accused has cultivated cannabis plant with an intention of drying the leaves and selling them at higher prices to persons who are addicted to ganja in the surrounding villages for easy wrongful gain. No case is made out for grant of bail and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶21

G.Suresh- S.I. of police has lodged a report before P.S. Luxettipet on 13.08.2026 stating that he received credible information that the petitioner-accused is illegally cultivating ganja plant in his house premises, on questioning the accused he stated that three months prior to the seizure, he planted one cannabis plant and watered it regularly and the value of the cannabi plant is approximately Rs.5,000/-. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered.

¶22

Petitioner-accused is arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.08.2026. Since then, he is in jail.

¶23

1 (2004) 1 SCC 766

¶24

2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3297

¶25

3 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 5258

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

Crl.P.No.14472 of 2026

¶29

Complaint and remand case diary goes to show that police has measured the plant which is 1 feet 6 inches in height (0.45 mtrs) valued at Rs.5,000/-. It is further stated in the complaint and the remand case diary that three months prior to the seizure of the plant, petitioner-accused brought ganja from Chandrapur containing ganja seeds, after separating the seeds he consumed the ganja and thereafter preserved the seeds, since the earnings from agriculture work was insufficient to meet his daily needs and expenses then he decided to cultivate cannabis plants with an intention of drying the leaves and selling them at higher prices to persons who are addicted to ganja in the surrounding villages for easy wrongful gain.

¶30

In Alakh Ram¹ , Supreme Court observed at Para No.4 which reads as under :

¶31

“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... 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...

¶32

¶33

Crl.P.No.14472 of 2026

¶34

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."

¶35

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

¶36

“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."

¶37

In Manu³ , High Court of Karnataka held as under:

¶38

“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”.

¶39

In Augustine Ballava⁴ , High Court of Calcutta held as

¶40

under:

¶41

“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

¶42

¶43

Crl.P.No.14472 of 2026

¶44

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."

¶45

Prosecution has not weighed the plant and they have just measured the height. In column 10 of the FIR, the total value of the property stolen is shown as Rs.5,000/-. The map enclosed to the FIR goes to show that the open area is accessible to four households.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

Crl.P.No.14472 of 2026

¶52

The decisions in Manu³ , and Augustine Balla⁴ are applicable to the case on hand.

¶53

This court is of the view that prosecution has not weighed the plant but they have simply measured its height and the petitioner-accused has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶54

In the result, petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶55

i. The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), 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.

¶56

ii. The petitioner-accused 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.

¶57