Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail in NDPS Case Involving 2000 Tramadol Tablets; Finds Commercial Quantity and Licence Violation Established

Case Name: Dr. Jatinder Malhotra vs. Union of India and Another
Date of Judgment: 13 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-33573-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail, holding that the recovery of Tramadol in commercial quantity and the admitted absence of a valid licence attracted the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to establish compliance with licence conditions and that the material showed stocking and possession of 2000 Tramadol tablets in violation of statutory requirements. Given the seriousness of allegations and the quantity involved, the Court held that no grounds existed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Summary: The prosecution alleged that 2000 Tramadol tablets were recovered from the petitioner’s hospital premises during an NCB raid following earlier recoveries in a linked case. The petitioner contended that he was a medical practitioner running a registered hospital and the tablets were intended for patient care, not illicit trafficking. It was argued that only 200 tablets were ordered, and the shipment of 2000 tablets was a supplier error, further supported by letters seeking return of excess quantity. The defence also submitted that the tablets were sealed, unused and unsuitable for intoxication due to composition. The State and NCB opposed bail, asserting that the licence conditions expressly prohibited stocking Tramadol and that no permission existed to procure or retain such quantity. The Court examined the Form-20 retail licence (page 4), noting a specific prohibition against Tramadol and similar narcotic or psychotropic substances. It further recorded that the petitioner was unable to explain why such a drug that had not been ordered in over a decade was suddenly procured in bulk, nor why the return request was not produced at the time of seizure. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s drug licence was subsequently cancelled for violation of terms.

Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the seized quantity fell within the commercial category and therefore attracted the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act. Finding no material to demonstrate innocence or negate reasonable belief of guilt at this stage, and noting that possession was without a valid licence, the Court concluded that no grounds existed for grant of regular bail. The Court clarified that observations were limited to adjudication of bail and would not affect the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.