[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Joga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10545) on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10545]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2586/2026
Joga Ram S/o Mota Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Dhandhora
Ps Asop Dist Jodhpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail,
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2585/2026
Jeevan Ram S/o Chela Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Dhandhrora Ps Asop Dist Jodhpur (At Present Lodged In Central
Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Order
26/02/2026
1. The petitioners have filed these bail applications under
Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.20/2026 registered at Police
Station Aasop, District Jodhpur Rural for offence under Sections
8/18, 20 of NDPS Act.
2. Since both these bail applications arise out of common FIR,
hence, they are being decided by this common order.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:49:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10545] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2586/2026]
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that contraband
18 plants of ganja and 438 plants of opium, which are prohibited
under the provisions of NDPS Act have been recovered from the
present petitioners.
He further submits that as per the definition of 'Ganja' given
under Section 2(iii)(b), it is only the flowering or fruit tops of the
cannabis plants, excluding the seeds and leaves, when not
accompanied by the tops, it would become Ganja. In the present
case, the allegation against the present petitioner is of cultivation
of cannabis plants and nothing more.
He also submits that as per NDPS Act there is no prescribed
quantity for cultivation of opium poppy that can be treated as
either small or commercial quantity. Section 18 of the NDPS Act,
which discusses the punishment for contravention in relation to
opium poppy and opium, prescribes punishment for small quantity
in sub-clause (a), for commercial quantity in sub-clause (b) and all
other cases are covered under sub-clause (c). Thus, the
corresponding punishment-prescribing provision for offence under
Section 8(b) would be Section 18(c). Therefore, it can be safely
inferred from the above that the restriction contained under
Section 37 of provision of bail will not operate in the present case.
The petitioners are in custody since 16.02.2026 with no
criminal past. The trial of the case will take considerable time,
therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioners in further custody and the bail application of the
petitioners may be allowed.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:49:22 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10545] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2586/2026]
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail
application.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions and material
available on record and in the light of submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioners but without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail
to the petitioners.
7. Consequently, the bail applications under Section 483
B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Joga
Ram S/o Mota Ram and Jeevan Ram S/o Chela Ram be
released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with
the stipulation that each of them shall appear before that Court on
all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
100-101/AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:49:22 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
