NDPS Act | S.37 Rigours For Bail Not Attracted To Offence For Cultivation Of 'Ganja' In Absence Of Commercial Quantity: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has granted bail to a 52-year-old cultivator accused of cultivating cannabis plants, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to offences under Section 20(a) in the absence of any commercial quantity. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, while allowing the bail application, observed that the statutory rigours imposing a reverse burden and stricter standards for bail would not apply in such cases.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 0017 of 2026 registered at PS Kalighat under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act on allegations that cannabis (ganja) plants were found in his backyard and sealed packets containing branches of such plants were recovered from his bathroom. However, the Court noted a significant discrepancy in the grounds of arrest, where an allegation of “misappropriation of public funds” had been introduced, despite there being no such averment in the FIR. Terming this as a “superimposition,” the Court held that such an extraneous ground could not be considered while adjudicating the bail plea.

On the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court held that the provision is attracted only to specific offences and those involving commercial quantity. In the present case, since the allegations pertained to cultivation and recovery of cannabis plants and branches, and no commercial quantity was involved or prescribed, the rigours of Section 37(1)(b) were held to be inapplicable. The Court relied on precedents cited by the petitioner to reinforce this interpretation.

The Court also took note of the fact that although the Trial Court had earlier rejected the petitioner's bail plea, the submissions now advanced, particularly regarding the inapplicability of Section 37 and the willingness to comply with stringent conditions, had not been considered earlier. The petitioner undertook to reside outside the jurisdiction of PS Kalighat and instead stay within PS Rangat, thereby addressing the apprehension of the prosecution that he might engage in further distribution of cannabis.

Accepting this undertaking, the Court held that any such risk could be effectively mitigated by imposing appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayabunder. The Court further directed that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of PS Kalighat during the investigation and trial, shall report to PS Rangat once every week, attend trial on all dates, and shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Case: Augustine Ballava vs State

Case No: CRM(NDPS)/4/2026)