Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act

"Placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems would not constitute an actual part of the drug — only the actual content and weight of the narcotic drug would be relevant for determining whether it would constitute commercial quantity", Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling in two connected bail applications arising from an NDPS case, holding that where seized material is a heterogeneous mixture of flowering tops and leaves, stalks or branches, the weight of the non-narcotic material cannot be clubbed with the actual ganja for determining commercial quantity.

Justice Prateek Jalan granted bail to both accused, finding that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were rendered doubtful on the facts of the case.

Background of the Case

On December 9, 2024, two accused — Mujabil and Shahid @ Aabu — were apprehended by police at Kalkaji, New Delhi, while carrying a black bag found to contain 21.95 kilograms of alleged ganja. Both were arrested the same day and charged under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Importantly, the Seizure Memo itself recorded that the bag was "full of dried leaves and small branches" which appeared to be ganja by smell and sight. The FSL report dated February 21, 2025, described the exhibit as "dried greenish brown coloured flowering and fruiting tops vegetative material" — a description that the Court found telling in its incompleteness. Mujabil had been in custody for approximately one year and four months, and Shahid @ Aabu for approximately one year, when the bail applications came up for hearing.

Legal Issues

The central question before the Court was whether the seized substance — recorded as including dried leaves and small branches — satisfied the statutory definition of "ganja" under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, and consequently, whether the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kilograms was actually crossed so as to attract the stringent twin conditions of bail under Section 37 of the Act.

Court's Observations and Judgment

What Is 'Ganja' Under the NDPS Act — And What Is Not

Justice Prateek Jalan began by setting out the statutory definition with precision. Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act defines ganja as "the flowering or 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." The Court noted that this definition draws a clear line: only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant constitute ganja, while seeds, leaves, and stalks, when not accompanied by the tops, fall entirely outside the statute's reach.

Relying on the framework analysed in the coordinate bench judgment of Ravina Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court explained the distinction through three categories. Category A is a homogeneous mixture of flowering buds and fruiting tops alone — this squarely falls within the NDPS Act. Category B is a homogeneous mixture of seeds, leaves, and stalks without any tops — this does not attract the Act at all. The legal complexity arises with Category C — a heterogeneous mixture combining both categories. "If the material seized is a heterogeneous mixture/Category C, constituting of Category A mixed with Category B, the placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems (Category B) would not constitute an actual part of the drug and only the actual content and weight of the narcotic drug (Category A) would be relevant for determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity."

The Seizure Memo Itself Created the Doubt

The Court found the seeds of reasonable doubt planted by the prosecution's own documentation. The Seizure Memo, translated from Hindi by the Court, explicitly described the bag as containing "dried leaves and small branches." The Magistrate's sampling order noted a "muddy brown substance," while the FSL report described the exhibit as containing "flowering and fruiting tops vegetative material." Justice Jalan observed that the description in the FSL report was of only the sample extracted for analysis — not of the entire seized quantity which, as the Seizure Memo showed, included material that does not statutorily constitute ganja.

The total seized weight of 21.95 kilograms was only marginally above the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kilograms under the Act. The Court found this proximity to the threshold, combined with the admixture of non-narcotic material in the weighed quantity, to be a decisive factor. "The weight of actual Ganja recovered is a matter of trial" — and where that weight is uncertain, the higher burden cast by Section 37 cannot be automatically imposed at the bail stage.

Section 37 Rigours Cannot Apply Where Commercial Quantity Is Doubtful

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions on bail in commercial quantity cases, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence on bail. The Court held that these twin conditions are premised on the prosecution having established, at least prima facie, that commercial quantity was involved. Where the seized material is a heterogeneous mixture and the actual weight of the narcotic component — the flowering and fruiting tops — cannot be determined from the record, the rigours of Section 37 do not automatically apply.

"It has been consistently held that if there is a prima facie discrepancy in what was seized and what was analysed and weighed and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of offences dealing in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for grant of regular bail, would not become applicable," the Court recorded, following the consistent line of its coordinate bench decisions in Ravina Kumari, Ashok Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and the recent judgment in Manjay Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (decided March 19, 2026).

Personal Circumstances Weighed in Favour of Bail

Beyond the legal point on definition and quantity, the Court took note of the personal circumstances of both applicants. Mujabil was only 18 years of age at the time of arrest. Neither applicant had any prior criminal record. Shahid @ Aabu had been released on interim bail on three separate occasions without any allegation of misuse. The prosecution had cited 16 witnesses and had not yet commenced leading evidence despite charges being framed — signalling that the trial was likely to take considerable time. These factors, taken together with the doubtful applicability of Section 37, led the Court to grant bail.

Both applicants were directed to be released on personal bonds of Rs. 35,000 each with one surety in the like amount, subject to conditions including appearing before the Special Court on every date of hearing, surrendering passports, not leaving the country, maintaining operative mobile numbers, and refraining from contacting prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail adjudication and were not to be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: April 6, 2026