2020 (11) TMI 1120 - HC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory bail granted for alleged ganja cultivation with strict conditions on compliance and trial attendance.

The HC granted anticipatory bail to the accused under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C for alleged offences under Sec. 20(B)(1), (8) of the NDPS Act, related to growing ... Seeking grant of bail - offences punishable under Sections 20(B) (1), (8) of NDPS Act - seizure of ganja plants of a commercial quantity or not - HELD THAT:- Though it is contended by the learned HCGP that from possession commercial quantity of ganja has been seized from backside of house of the accused but on perusal of the records, a complaint has been registered and nowhere quantity of ganja has been stated and subsequently, they made a raid and panchanama has been drawn and the wet ganja plants have been uprooted without separating the stems, seeds, flowers, buds and fruits etc., and the entire quantity of ganja which is seized is in wet condition. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to prima facie find out at this stage whether the seized ganja is of small quantity or intermediate quantity or commercial quantity. The ganja seized in wet form weighed 20 kgs. That itself shows that it is less than a commercial quantity. It is opined that by imposing some stringent conditions if petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice - Petitioner–accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail on fulfilment of conditions imposed - petition allowed. Issues:Petition for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for offences under Sections 20(B) (1), (8) of NDPS Act - Seizure of ganja plants - Allegation of growing ganja plants against the accused - Dispute over the quantity of ganja seized - Consideration of bail based on quantity and circumstances.Analysis:The petitioner/accused filed a petition seeking bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in a case involving offences under Sections 20(B) (1), (8) of the NDPS Act. The complaint alleged that the accused had grown ganja plants in Basapura village. The police received information and uprooted 16 ganja plants, leading to the registration of a case. The petitioner's counsel argued that the accused was not present during the incident and had no connection to the ganja cultivation. It was contended that the seized ganja's weight of 20 kgs was inaccurate as it was not properly separated into seeds, stems, flowers, etc. The defense maintained that the quantity seized did not constitute a commercial amount and that the accused was willing to comply with any bail conditions imposed by the court.The prosecution claimed that a commercial quantity of ganja was found at the accused's residence. However, upon review of the records, it was noted that the quantity of ganja was not specified in the complaint. The ganja plants were uprooted in a wet state without separating the different components. The court acknowledged the difficulty in determining the quantity of ganja at this stage, given the wet condition of the seized material. The total weight of the wet ganja was 20 kgs, indicating it was likely below a commercial quantity.Considering the circumstances, the court opined that imposing stringent conditions for anticipatory bail would serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the petitioner/accused was ordered to be released on bail if arrested in connection with the case. The court set various conditions for bail, including executing a bond, surrendering to the investigating officer within 20 days, not tampering with evidence, attending trial proceedings regularly, and refraining from criminal activities or witness intimidation. Violation of any condition would result in the bail being revoked.