"Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants

"If the report is taken into consideration the roots, stems and the branches to come to the conclusion the weight of the substance the same would not evince the credibility. The same runs contrary to the definition of 'Ganja'," Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 14, 2026, held that seized material comprising roots, stems, and branches does not satisfy the statutory definition of "ganja" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

A single-judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that the inclusion of such parts to calculate the total weight of the contraband "runs contrary to the definition" provided under Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act. The Court emphasized that for a substance to qualify as ganja, it must specifically consist of the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant.

The petitioner, Nagaraju, was arrested on December 11, 2025, following a police raid on his agricultural land where he was allegedly cultivating ganja plants amidst a jowar plantation. The respondent-police seized 20 plants measuring 4 to 6 feet in height, which weighed a total of 10.5 kilograms. Charged under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act, the petitioner remained in custody for five months before approaching the High Court for bail, contending that the seizure was legally flawed.

The primary question before the Court was whether the seized material, which included roots, stems, and branches weighed together, satisfied the definition of "ganja" under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. The Court was also called upon to determine if the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for innocence for the purpose of granting bail, given the alleged procedural and statutory lapses in the seizure mahazar.

Statutory Definition of Ganja Under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act

The Court began by meticulously examining the legal definition of "ganja" as provided in the NDPS Act. Justice Kamal noted that Section 2(iii)(b) defines ganja specifically as the "flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant." The statute explicitly excludes seeds and leaves from this definition when they are not accompanied by the flowering or fruiting tops. The Court pointed out that this narrow definition is crucial for determining the weight of the contraband and the subsequent severity of the charges.

Seizure of Whole Plants Including Roots Runs Contrary to Law

Upon reviewing the mahazar (seizure report), the Court found that the police had weighed the entire uprooted plant as a single unit. The report indicated that the 20 plants were weighed "along with roots, stems, and branches mixed with leaves." Justice Kamal observed that including these excluded parts to reach the total weight of 10.5 kilograms lacked legal credibility. The bench remarked that when the report includes parts that the law specifically omits from the definition of the drug, the weight calculation itself becomes questionable.

"The substance recovered by the respondent-Police includes roots, stem, branches, leaves, all put together weighing 10kgs. The same runs contrary to the definition of 'Ganja'."

Weight Calculation Vitiates Credibility of Prosecution Case

The Court further addressed the submission of the High Court Government Pleader, who argued that the forensic report confirmed the weight of the substance. Justice Kamal held that if the weight recorded in the report includes roots and stems to reach the conclusion of 10.5 kilograms, it cannot be used to sustain the rigors of the NDPS Act at the bail stage. The Court found that such a discrepancy between the statutory definition and the physical seizure created a significant doubt regarding the classification of the seized material.

Petitioner Entitled to Bail After Five Months of Custody

Considering that the petitioner had already been imprisoned for five months and that the charge sheet had been filed, the Court found that he had made out a prima facie case for release. The bench noted that the legal infirmity in the definition of the seized substance entitled the petitioner to the benefit of the doubt during the pendency of the trial. Consequently, the Court decided to exercise its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC (now Section 483 of the BNSS) to grant bail.

"The petitioner at this juncture has made out a prima facie case of his innocence being entitled to be released on bail."

Final Directions and Conditions of Bail

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two local sureties. The petitioner was ordered to appear regularly before the Trial Court and was strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or involving himself in similar offences. Furthermore, the Court restricted the petitioner from leaving the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission until the disposal of the case.

The ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of the NDPS Act, ensuring that law enforcement agencies adhere to the technical definitions of contraband. By clarifying that roots and stems cannot be factored into the weight of seized ganja, the Court has provided a vital safeguard against over-quantification of drug seizures. The decision underscores that procedural and statutory accuracy is paramount in narcotics cases where the quantity of the drug determines the severity of the punishment.

Date of Decision: 14 May 2026