Ganja under NDPS Act means only flowering tops, not whole plant: Rajasthan High Court grants bail

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to three accused in a cannabis cultivation case under the NDPS Act, 1985, holding that the weight of whole cannabis plants — including seeds, roots, stems, leaves and soil — cannot establish “commercial quantity” under the Act, since the statutory definition of “ganja” is confined to the “flowering or fruiting tops” of the cannabis plant alone, and no bifurcation of the seized material was carried out before weighing.

Justice Ravi Chirania observed that since no segregation of the flowering or fruiting tops from the rest of the plant was undertaken prior to weighing, it could not be presumed that the recovered contraband exceeded the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kg prescribed for ganja under S.O. 1055(E) dated 19 October 2001, and that the petitioners therefore could not be made to face the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which bars bail in cases involving commercial quantity.

The Court relied on a coordinate bench order in Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9279/2022, decided on 7 July 2022), and reproduced the following passage from that order:

“As averred, for the purpose of determining the total weight of the recovered contraband ganja, the whole plants were taken into consideration, including the seeds, roots, stems and leaves, along with the soil as well whereas only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plants should have been taken for weighing of contraband ganja as per the defining clause under N.D.P.S. Act. 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.”

The three petitioners — Chanda Devi w/o Prabhudayal, Rameshwar s/o Beejaram, and Teeja Devi w/o Arjun Lal, all residents of Village Nayan, Police Station Amarsar, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur — were arrested in connection with FIR No. 0048/2026 dated 17 March 2026, registered at Police Station Amarsar, District Jaipur Rural, for offences punishable under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Their bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Shahpura, District Jaipur had been rejected vide order dated 7 May 2026, prompting the present application before the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

During the investigation, police had seized 232 cannabis plants from Khasra No. 2718 weighing 29 kg 300 grams and 429 cannabis plants from Khasra Nos. 2715 and 2720 weighing 57 kg 150 grams — a total of 86 kg 450 grams. The entire plant material, including seeds, roots, stems, leaves and soil, was weighed without any segregation of the flowering or fruiting tops from the rest of the plant.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, submitted that only the “flowering or fruiting tops” of the cannabis plant ought to have been weighed under the statutory definition of “ganja” in Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which specifically excludes seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. He contended that in the absence of any bifurcation before weighing, the possibility could not be ruled out that the actual weight of the contraband — if properly determined — would fall below the commercial quantity specified under the Act. He also highlighted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act and that two of the three accused are women.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that the recovered quantity falls within the category of commercial quantity under the Act.

The Court, after examining the statutory framework, turned to Vinod Kumar (supra), which addressed a materially similar question. That coordinate bench had analysed Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which defines “ganja” as “the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated.” It had further noted that Section 2(viia) defines “commercial quantity” as any quantity greater than what is specified by the Central Government by notification, and that notification S.O. 1055(E) dated 19 October 2001 fixes the commercial quantity for ganja at 20 kg.

On the question of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the coordinate bench in Vinod Kumar had clarified that Section 37 restricts bail only for offences under Sections 19, 24, 27A, and for offences involving commercial quantity under Section 20(b). The offence of cultivating cannabis plants under Section 8(b) of the Act falls under Section 20(a), which prescribes a maximum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment without any quantity-specific gradation and is not covered by the Section 37 bar on bail.

Justice Chirania applied this reasoning to the present case and observed that in the absence of any specific weight of the flowering or fruiting tops alone — the only part of the plant that legally constitutes “ganja” under the NDPS Act — it could not be presumed that the recovered substance exceeded the prescribed commercial quantity. The Court also took note of the petitioners’ clean antecedents under the NDPS Act and the fact that two of them are women.

The bail application was accordingly allowed. The Court directed that all three petitioners be released on bail upon each of them executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties of ₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioners were specifically directed not to cultivate cannabis plants on their agricultural land; if such plants are found in future, the bail granted shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Court. It was further directed that if any petitioner is found involved in any case under the NDPS Act during the pendency of trial, the Public Prosecutor shall file an application for cancellation of bail.

Title: Chanda Devi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7415/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23427]

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Pradeep Kalwania

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P.