Abdullah Batcha vs. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Town North

Facts

The petitioner, Abdullah Batcha (Accused No. 2), sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 256 of 2026, registered by the Town North Police Station, Dindigul District. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, who runs a medical shop, colluded with other accused in possessing and selling drugs. A search of the medical shop and another floor yielded 839 grams of Alprozoaim tablets, 2144 grams of Diazepam tablets, and 3550 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride injection. The petitioner claimed innocence, stated he had valid purchase bills for the medicines, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, arguing that while some invoices were produced, they accounted for only a limited quantity of drugs, with a large quantity recovered without proper accounting. The State also highlighted the petitioner's prior conviction in a similar case in 2022 and that his son now holds the license for the shop, suggesting both were involved in illegal billing of narcotic drugs.

Held

The Court held that the case involved a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs. While the petitioner claimed to have medical bills, the Court noted that these bills did not account for the entire quantity of contraband seized. The Court also considered the petitioner's prior conviction in a similar case in 2022. It was determined that the quantity of drugs seized was more than what could be accounted for by the purchase bills, indicating illegal possession. Consequently, the Court found that the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable, which mandates that courts must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offense and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail. As these conditions were not met, anticipatory bail could not be granted. The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and the applicability of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985? The petitioner argued for anticipatory bail, asserting innocence, possession of valid purchase bills for medicines, and willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The State contended that the recovered quantity of drugs was commercial and exceeded the quantity accounted for by the petitioner's bills. It was also argued that the petitioner had a previous conviction for a similar offense and that the investigation was in its preliminary stages, opposing the grant of anticipatory bail. The State relied on the fact that the recovered contraband's quantity was more than what was purchased through GST bills, indicating illegal possession.