IN THE MATTER OF : SUCHARITA LODH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 weightment 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 unravelling a racket of extortion carried out by the influential persons.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.