{"id":351970,"date":"2025-07-01T10:30:44","date_gmt":"2025-07-01T05:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=351970"},"modified":"2025-07-03T09:26:02","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T03:56:02","slug":"andhra-pradesh-high-court-ndps-ganja-definition-bail-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/01\/andhra-pradesh-high-court-ndps-ganja-definition-bail-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Ganja\u2019 under NDPS Act excludes seeds and leaves: Andhra Pradesh High Court grants bail in 32 kg seizure case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Andhra Pradesh High Court<\/span>: A criminal petition was filed by the petitioner and his wife under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/span> seeking regular bail in a criminal case<\/span> registered for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)<\/a>, 25<\/a> read with Section 8(c)<\/a> of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<\/a><\/span> (\u201cNDPS Act\u201d). Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., granted bail to the petitioner not merely on leniency but owing to substantive legal shortcomings in the prosecution\u2019s compliance with the NDPS Act<\/a>\u2019s procedural requirements.<\/p>\n

The factual background reveals that the petitioners, a married couple, were apprehended in possession of 32 kilograms of Ganja. According to the prosecution, they had procured the Ganja from the neighbouring state of Odisha at a low cost and intended to sell it in Andhra Pradesh at higher prices for profit. Upon apprehension, the alleged contraband was seized from them, forming the foundation of the case.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the seized material did not fall within the statutory definition of “Ganja” under Section 2(iii)(b) and (c)<\/a> of the NDPS Act<\/a>. It was contended that the seizure included leaves, seeds, and stems which, if not accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops, do not constitute “Ganja” as per the Act. The petitioners emphasized that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory requirement of segregating the flowering tops from the rest of the plant material during the seizure and weighing process. It was submitted that this procedural lapse significantly undermined the evidentiary value of the seizure and that no adverse presumption under Section 37<\/a> of the NDPS Act<\/a> could be drawn in these circumstances.<\/p>\n

In response, the Assistant Public Prosecutor firmly opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the case involved a commercial quantity<\/span> of the contraband, which attracted the rigor of Section 37<\/a> of the NDPS Act<\/a>. The State urged that given the serious nature of the offence and the quantity involved, bail ought to be denied.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the law specifically includes only the flowering or fruiting tops<\/span> of the cannabis plant and expressly excludes seeds and leaves<\/span> if not accompanied by the tops. The Court found merit in the contention of the petitioners that the seized contraband was not properly segregated before being weighed, and that it could not be presumed that the entire 32 kilograms comprised flowering tops alone.<\/p>\n

Taking into account these legal and factual aspects, the Court held that there were justifiable grounds to grant bail. It observed that the mandatory requirements concerning the proper identification and weighing of the contraband were not fulfilled, thereby diluting the strength of the prosecution case at this stage.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition and granted bail to the petitioners with the following conditions:<\/p>\n