'Ganja' Quantity Can't Be Determined Precisely If 'Flower' Is Weighed Along With Leaves, Branches: Delhi High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), observing that the quantity of contraband could not be precisely determined as the seized contraband was weighed along with dried leaves, branches and grass-like substances, which may not fall within the statutory definition of “ganja”.Justice Prateek...
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), observing that the quantity of contraband could not be precisely determined as the seized contraband was weighed along with dried leaves, branches and grass-like substances, which may not fall within the statutory definition of “ganja”.
Justice Prateek Jalan noted that Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act defines ganja as the “flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant”, excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops.
In the present case, the seizure memos and FIR described the recovered material as comprising dried branches, leaves and grass-like substances, without clearly identifying the presence of flowering or fruiting tops.
“I find that the quantity of contraband in the present case, cannot be precisely determined at this stage, as the seized goods were weighed alongwith dried branches, leaves, and grass-like substances, which may not fall within the statutory definition of “ganja”,” the Court thus observed.
It added that this uncertainty has a direct bearing on the applicability of the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Apart from the issue of quantity, the Court also took note of prima facie irregularities in the sampling procedure. It observed that samples were not drawn from each packet individually in accordance with the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, and instead appeared to have been drawn collectively, raising doubts about compliance with Section 52A of the Act.
“...both these issues, with regard to the sampling procedure, and the satisfaction of the statutory definition of “ganja”, are ultimately matters for trial. However, a prima facie analysis, in line with Md. Muslim, leads me to a determination in favour of the petitioners, that they ought not to be deprived of liberty during the course of trial,” it said.
FOr context, the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)20 , make it clear that the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be adjudged on the basis of a prima facie case, and not on a literal reading which would require the Court, at the stage of bail, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had not committed the offence with which they are charged.
Considering these factors, the Court held that the accused had made out a case for grant of bail.
Appearance: Mr. Aditya Aggarwal and Mr. Naveen Panwar, Advocates for Petitioners; Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with ASI Yashpal Singh for Respondent
Case title: Manjay Kumar v. State
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 4206/2025