'Temple From Which Ganja Was Recovered Was Not In His Exclusive Possession': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Priest In NDPS Case

Justice Sandeep Shinde while dealing with the bail application observed that prima facie, the temple was not in exclusive possession of the priest.

"Above all the charge-sheet, prima-facie, does not suggest that temple from which ganja was recovered, was in his exclusive possession of the applicant. To put it differently, temple premises being accessible to the public at large, it cannot be said that said premises were in exclusive possession and control of the applicant", the court said in its order.

It was the prosecution's case that a raid was conducted in the Hanuman Mandir Math and 10 kgs of Ganja was allegedly recovered. Cannabis plants were found cultivated in the adjoining land which were uprooted and weighed 31.445 kgs. Further, two antlers and skin of deer were allegedly found in the temple.

The applicant was booked under sections 8(c), 20, and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sections 2(16), 9, 39 48(a), 49(b), 51, and 52 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.

Advocate Mithilesh Mishra for the applicant contended that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant cultivated the plants. The applicant does not own the land from which the plants were uprooted.

Further, as the Ganja recovered is of non-commercial quantity, stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. There is no material to show the exact weight of Ganja detected from the cannabis, Mishra argued.

APP A.A. Palkar for the state opposed the application stating that the allegations prima facie attract Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act which is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.

The court perused the charge sheet and agreed with Mishra's submission that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant cultivated the cannabis plants as the land from which is the plants were uprooted belonged to the village.

The court said that rigorous bail conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply in this case as the Ganja recovered was not of commercial quantity.

The court noted that while the chemical analysis report is positive for detection of cannabis, the charge sheet does not indicate the quantity of Ganja recovered from the plants.

Finally, the court said that the charge sheet doesn't suggest that the temple was in exclusive possession of the applicant.

Therefore, the court granted bail to the priest on a PR bond of 30000. The court directed him to attend the concerned police station on the second Monday of every month between 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. till the charges are framed.

Case no. – Bail Application No. 825 of 2022

Case title – Shantaram B. Dhoble v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 446