Introduction:

In the case Kulwant Singh v. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, Kulwant Singh, accused of possessing 550 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride. The Court ruled that Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not a scheduled psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), thus negating the applicability of Sections 22 and 29 of the Act. The appeal was heard by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, who overturned the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s rejection of the appellant’s anticipatory bail plea. The case revolved around the question of whether the presence of a substance not listed in the NDPS Schedule could justify prosecution under the Act. The appellant’s argument relied on two High Court judgments—2024 SCC OnLine Mad 445 and 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1631—which had previously held that Tapentadol is not classified as a psychotropic substance under the Act. The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning and allowed the appeal, directing that in case of arrest, the appellant be granted bail by the trial court under appropriate conditions.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The prosecution contended that the appellant was found in possession of 550 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride while traveling in a car with the co-accused, the owner of the vehicle. An FIR was registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging illegal possession of psychotropic substances. The prosecution argued that the large quantity indicated an intention to distribute or sell, and thus stringent provisions of the NDPS Act should apply. They maintained that possession of such tablets without proper authorization should be deemed illegal and attract penal provisions under the Act. On the other hand, the appellant’s counsel strongly opposed these claims, arguing that Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not included in the NDPS Schedule and therefore does not fall within the definition of a psychotropic substance under the Act. The counsel cited two authoritative High Court rulings—one from the Madras High Court and another from the Bombay High Court—which clearly held that Tapentadol is not a scheduled drug under the NDPS Act. Since there was no legal classification of the drug as a psychotropic substance, the very basis of the prosecution’s allegations was unfounded. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that mere possession of an unscheduled drug does not automatically bring it within the ambit of the NDPS Act, and hence, there was no prima facie case against the appellant.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that since Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not classified as a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, no prima facie case was made out against him. The Court underscored the importance of strict adherence to statutory schedules while prosecuting individuals under stringent laws like the NDPS Act. It emphasized that an individual cannot be charged under the Act for possessing a substance that is not explicitly included in the NDPS Schedule. Recognizing the appellant’s legal position, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail, directing that in case of arrest, he should be released on bail on terms set by the trial court. The Court’s ruling reaffirmed the principle that penal laws must be interpreted strictly and that no one should be prosecuted for possessing a substance unless it is explicitly listed as prohibited under the concerned legislation. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, reinforcing the necessity of a clear legislative framework for drug control laws.