Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedS. v. State of Rajasthan
2025:RJ-JD:27658
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5136/2025
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 20 June 2025
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 16, 18, 37; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 437, 438; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 482
Final Outcome
Anticipatory bail allowed: if arrested in FIR No. 56/2025, Police Station Mandal, she is to be released on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of Rs 25,000 each, on conditions including joining interrogation, not influencing witnesses and not leaving India without permission (para 23).
Key holdings
- Section 18(c) prescribes no threshold quantity, so neither the number nor the weight of poppy plants brings a cultivation charge within Section 37 (para 13).
- Unless a special statute expressly bars it, anticipatory bail remains available under Section 438 CrPC, now Section 482 BNSS (para 13).
- Uncorroborated custodial statements of co-accused, especially minors, cannot alone justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration (para 6).
- The first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC, favouring women, informs the exercise of anticipatory bail discretion (paras 9-11).
Brief Facts
On 12.02.2025 police found 1,500 opium poppy plants scattered within a mustard field in Bhilwara district, guarded by a 16-year-old boy (para 2). He said that another man was cultivating the field and that his mother, the petitioner, looked after it (para 2). The revenue records showed the land in a third person's name (para 2). An FIR was registered under Sections 8/16 and 8/18 of the NDPS Act; the boy was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and released on 18.02.2025 (paras 1-2). The Special Judge (NDPS), Bhilwara rejected her anticipatory bail application on 21.04.2025 (para 2).
Court's Findings
The case against her rested solely on the minor's oral disclosure in custody, without independent corroboration; the Jamabandi showed the land in another person's name, and nothing showed that she exercised dominion or conscious possession or took part in sowing or tending the crop (paras 6, 15-16). Statements by co-accused or persons in custody, particularly minors, carry limited value without corroboration (para 6). Cultivation falls under Section 8(b) read with Section 18; Section 18(c) is a residuary provision with no quantity threshold, so the offence cannot be classed as commercial quantity and Section 37 is not attracted (paras 12-13). Without an express bar in the special statute, the power under Section 438 CrPC, now Section 482 BNSS, remains available (para 13). As a woman she fell within the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC, and the juvenile, facing identical allegations, had been released (paras 9-11). The Public Prosecutor agreed that custodial interrogation was not needed (para 14). Citing Joginder Kumar, the Court said the power to arrest is distinct from its justification (para 21).
Legal Principle
Cultivation of opium poppy punishable under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act involves no small or commercial quantity, so the Section 37 bar does not apply and anticipatory bail is available; an uncorroborated custodial disclosure of a co-accused cannot alone justify custodial interrogation (paras 6, 13).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
The existence of the power to arrest is one thing and the justification for exercising it is another; arrest should not be used as a punitive tool where the investigation can proceed without custody.
