[news18] Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Priest Booked For Possessing and Cultivating Ganja Inside Temple
The high court granted bail to a priest booked for cultivating and possessing ganja on the ground that it was not of commercial quantity and it could not have been said that the priest was in exclusive possession of ganja
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Shinde has granted bail to a priest of Hanuman Mandir Math at Pune who was booked under NDPS Act and Wildlife Protection Act.
The said case pertains to a raid that was conducted by police officials wherein it was found that the priest was in possession of 10 kg of Ganja and another 31.445 kg of cultivated ganja by the priest. He was also found in possession of two antlers and the skin of deer in the temple math.
The advocate for the priest argued that the land from which the plants were uprooted, was not owned by the applicant, but is a village land that can be checked from the panchnama. Therefore, there is no evidence that shows that he was cultivating ganja. He also argued that with respect to 10kg of ganja, it being a non-commercial quantity, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
The government pleader argued that prima facie the crime attracts provisions of Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act and it being punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to ten years, and a fine up to one lakh, the applicant may not be granted bail.
The court agreed with the submission of the advocate for the priest that the said land belonged to the village and the ganja recovered was not of commercial quantity.
The court also said that the Chemical Analyser Report tested positive, but the charge sheet does not specify the amount of ganja extracted.
While raising doubts about the exclusive possession of the ganja said that
"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."