Section 37 NDPS Rigours Not Applicable To Limited Opium Poppy Cultivation: J&K HC

Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a petition by the Union Territory seeking cancellation of bail granted to a man accused of cultivating opium poppy on a single marla of land, holding that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had no application and finding no violation of bail conditions to warrant interference.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal was hearing a petition filed by the Union Territory through Police Station Mattan against Ghulam Nabi Mir, who had been arrested on 06.05.2026 on allegations of cultivating opium poppy on land measuring one marla, and had been granted interim bail by the Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag, by order dated 29.05.2026, later made absolute by order dated 15.06.2026.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had committed an offence under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and that although the rigours of Section 37 of the Act did not apply, the Special Judge had granted bail without assigning any reasons, merely observing that the allegation pertained to limited cultivation rather than recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband.

The court noted that the respondent had been on interim bail since 29.05.2026 and that there was no suggestion that he had violated any of the conditions imposed by the Special Judge. It also noted that, while making the interim bail absolute, the Special Judge had referred to the Supreme Court's direction in Anna Waman Bahalerao v. State of Maharashtra that bail applications be decided within two months of institution, and had recorded that there was nothing on record to suggest any violation of bail conditions.

Agreeing that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable and that the bail application ought to have been considered solely with reference to Section 18(c) of the Act, the court nonetheless held that "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere."

The petition was accordingly found to be without merit and dismissed.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate.

Case Title: Union Territory vs. Ghulam Nabi Mir, CRM(M) 696/2026, CrlM 1583/2026