Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 841 (CAL)

In Re: Sucharita Lodh v. .

2016-10-24

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, MIR DARA SHEKO

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady and is not directly involved in the business and she is the daughter of the licensee carrying on business in poppy. It is further submitted that the weighment of the seized narcotic substance was not conducted in a proper manner and deduction of the weight of the bags of poppy are not reflected either in the inventory list or in the seizure list. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case as she was instrumental in unraveling a racket of extortion carried out by the influential persons. Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta, learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioner was implicated in this instant case in view of seizure of excess stock of poppy to the tune of 702 kilograms and her statement recorded by the enquiring officer is also incriminating in nature. It is further submitted that alleged seizure is above commercial quantity and therefore, bail ought not to be granted. 2. It is true that in a matter relating to seizure of narcotic substance above the commercial quantity there is a statutory bar in the matter of grant of bail. However, in the event it is found that there are inherent lacunae in the prosecution case which goes to its root and a strong prima facie case consistent with the innocence of the accused is made out, such embargo stands rebutted and relief may be extended in deserving case. 3. In this light we have examined the materials on record. Firstly, there is hardly any evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner was in-charge of the business which was being conducted by her father. Admittedly, the licence stands in the name of her father. It is also evident that the weighment of the stock of poppy was not conducted in a proper manner inasmuch as deduction of the weight of the bags have not been made in the instant case. Hence, it cannot be said with certainty that the alleged seizure of excess of poppy, in fact, exceeded the commercial quantity under the Schedule of the Act attracting the statutory bar relating to the bail. Submissions have been made as to the likelihood of false implication of the petitioner for extraneous reasons. 4. Hence, it cannot be said with certainty that the alleged seizure of excess of poppy, in fact, exceeded the commercial quantity under the Schedule of the Act attracting the statutory bar relating to the bail. Submissions have been made as to the likelihood of false implication of the petitioner for extraneous reasons. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that a strong prima facie case as to the innocence of the petitioner has been made out to circumvent the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. There is also no possibility of the petitioner committing any offence in the future. 5. Accordingly, we are inclined in granting bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special NDPS Court, City Sessions, Kolkata upon execution of bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer of the case once in every week and shall not leave the State of West Bengal without leave of the learned Trial Court until further orders. The petitioner shall also submit her passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer subject to further orders of the trial Court in that regard. 6. The application for bail thus stands allowed. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.