Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010018892026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./309/2026 ALOM UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O NASIR UDDIN BARBHUIIYA R/O VILL- LATHIMARA P.S. KATIGORAH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. A AHMED,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 20-08-2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned APP. 2. This is a petition under Section 483 of the BNSS praying for grant of bail to the petitioner, who was arrested on 01.06.2025 in connection with Special Page No.# 2/5 NDPS Case No. 61/2025, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Sribhumi, arising out of Badarpur PS Case No. 97/2025, registered under Sections 21(a)/22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act which was served upon the petitioner at the time of his search to contend that the same did not fulfill the mandate of informing the petitioner of his right to refuse search by the police party, and therefore, the the search of the petitioner being not in accordance with law, the arrest of the petitioner in the present case requires an interference by allowing him to allowing him the privilege of bail during the period of trial. 4. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Suresh & Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 550, wherein it was held that when the appellants were not apprised of their legal right provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to refuse or to allow the police party to take their search and in the event they agree to a search, to opt for being searched before a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate, to submit that the mandates of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as interpreted in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 would not be fulfilled. 5. Learned counsel has thereafter made reference to the order dated 27.2.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 1722/2026 by this Court to impress that when the notice under Section 50 does not meet the requirement of law Page No.# 3/5 crystallized by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh & Others (supra), the petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the case, has submitted that the notice itself contains the signature of the petitioner herein to the effect that he had been informed and he had understood the notice of personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and he had submitted that he did not require that his search be conducted in the presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He accordingly opposes the prayer for bail. 7. I have gone through the material on record and also the citation relied upon by the counsel for the parties. In the present case, I find that the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not inform the petitioner of his legal right to refuse a search by the police party. 8. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Suresh (supra) and the order dated 27.02.2026 in Bail Application No. 1722/2026, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case the petitioner requires to be enlarged on bail on furnishing sufficient surety for his participation in the trial. Accordingly, the accused petitioner, namely, Mr. Alom Uddin Barbhuiya, is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain present during the trial proceedings as and when required to do so. He shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence nor Page No.# 4/5 shall indulge in interacting with the prosecution witnesses. 9. In the order dated 02.07.2026, this Court had also noticed as hereunder “11. Before parting, I wish to make the following observation: In such notices prepared by police under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the following needs to be incorporated: (i) the accused has a right to be searched before the nearest magistrate or gazetted officer, (ii) whether he would like to exercise that right. 12. A copy of this order may be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon for his kind information and needful.” 10. This Court is of the opinion that the order should also be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Assam. A copy of this order should be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Assam, who shall in turn percolate the same to the different police stations under his jurisdiction. A copy of this order would also be forwarded to the Director of Prosecution, Assam, for his doing the needful. 11. Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page No.# 5/5