Bombay High Court
YUSUF AKABAR TADVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
Bail was granted because the seizure did not clearly satisfy the definition of 'ganja' or the commercial‑quantity threshold under the NDPS Act.
Summary
Yusuf Akabar Tadvi was arrested for allegedly cultivating cannabis plants on his farm, with police seizing 167.53 kg of whole plants. The prosecution charged him under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(b) of the NDPS Act, asserting a commercial quantity of 'ganja'. The defence argued that the seizure included roots, leaves, and soil, and that no specific measurement of the flowering tops—required to constitute 'ganja'—was recorded, rendering the charge doubtful. The court examined the definition of 'ganja' under the Act and noted the lack of quantification of the flowering tops, referencing the Laxman Shankar Ghankute case where similar doubts were raised. Concluding that it was uncertain whether the seized material met the statutory definition or commercial‑quantity threshold, the court granted regular bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of whole cannabis plants without specific quantification of flowering tops falls within the definition of 'ganja' under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the quantity seized can be classified as a 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act.
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the doubts regarding the applicability of the statutory provisions.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 2(b), 2(c), 2(iii)(b), 8(b)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- cannabis cultivation
- ganja definition
- commercial quantity
- seizure procedure
- procedural irregularities
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:1788
1 935-BA-2449-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2449 OF 2025
YUSUF AKABAR TADVI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Aakash V. Bagal,
Mr. Suraj G. Dhormare
APP for Respondents : Mr. C. V. Badhane
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 17-01-2026
PER COURT:-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking regular bail
in connection with Crime No.0424 of 2025 dated 09.10.2025
registered with Raver Police Station, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon,
for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) (C) and 8(b) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution's case is that on October 9, 2025, police
received a confidential information that the applicant was illegally
cultivating cannabis plants for financial gain in the farm. The police
authorities immediately responded to the information and
conducted a raid on the specified location. Upon arriving at the
scene, police confronted the applicant and inquired about
permission for the said cultivation. The police then proceeded to
uproot and seize the illegal crop. A total of 172 green, wet
cannabis plants, complete with roots, weighing a collective 171.07
2 935-BA-2449-25.odt
kilograms were put to inventory. Subsequently, the samples were
sent for chemical analysis. The remaining bulk, consisting of
167.53 kilograms of cannabis plants ranging from 2 to 5 feet in
height, valued at approximately Rs.17,10,700/-, was recovered
from the applicant's possession. Accordingly, report came to be
lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is falsely implicated and challenges the validity of the
seizure. It is further submitted that the police have inflated the
total weight by seizing all 172 plants with the accompanying soil,
roots, leaves, and branches. Under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS
Act, "flowering and fruiting tops" are essential to classify material
as 'ganja', which these plants allegedly lacked. Furthermore, the
raid was conducted without following the due procedure, as police
have uprooted the alleged plants from the farm alongwith other
crop, raising doubts about the identification of the seized material.
Hence, prayed to allow the application.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the application and submitted
that huge quantity of Ganja plants seized from the field in
possession of the applicant. The seized contraband admeasuring
167.53 kg is of commercial quantity. As such, there is prima facie
complicity of the applicant and prayed to reject the application.
3 935-BA-2449-25.odt
5. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and perusing
the material on record, including the charge-sheet, indicates that
the applicant is an agriculturalist, who, allegedly planted the
contraband alongside a Tur (pulses) crop. The commercial quantity
in relation to the NDPS Act is considered to be 20 kg or above.
However, the expression ‘ganja’ specifically defines in Section 2(b)
and (c) as the flowering and 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, and
any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the
above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.
6. The expression, ‘ganja’ as defined under the Act makes it
abundantly clear that it refers specifically to the flowering or
fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding the seeds and leaves
when they are not accompanied by the tops.
7. In the present case, as is evident from the First Information
Report (FIR), the seizure weighed 167.53 kg, which constituted the
entire cannabis plants along with all other parts, including roots.
There is no separate record available to indicate the specific
quantity of only the flowering and fruiting tops—the precise
components that legally constitute 'ganja' under the Act (excluding
seeds and leaves).
4 935-BA-2449-25.odt
8. Therefore, at this juncture, it remains doubtful whether
the alleged offense properly falls under Section 20(b) of the NDPS
Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and in the absence of
a distinct record quantifying solely the possession of the flowering
tops, it is highly questionable whether the total quantity seized
can reliably be regarded as exceeding the commercial quantity
threshold. In any case, the same would be subject matter of trial.
9. In case of Laxman Shankar Ghankute Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 2583 of 2019), this
Court on 23.06.2021 observed that because the seizure consisted
of whole plants without a specific quantification of flowering tops,
there was doubt as to whether the weight could be classified as
"commercial quantity."
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the request of the applicant
warrants consideration. Accordingly, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) Applicant – Yusuf Akabar Tadvi, be released on regular bail
on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only)
with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount, in
connection with Crime No.0424 of 2025 dated 09.10.2025
registered with Raver Police Station, Taluka Raver, District
5 935-BA-2449-25.odt
Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)
(C) and 8(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, on the following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts either to the Court or to any Police
Officer.
(b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner and shall cooperate the learned
Trial Judge in expeditious disposal of the trial against him.
(c) The applicant shall not indulge in similar type of offences
in future.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered herein
are to the extent of this application and the trial court shall
not be influenced by the same.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]
rrd
Checking your session…