Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010064912026 2026:GAU-AS:11390 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./912/2026 HANIF ALI S/O SAKUAT ALI R/O VILL- NIDANPUR PART-II,P.O. LAKHIPUR, P.S.LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR. N J DUTTA,MS J YESMIN,MR Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. Z. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting regular Page No.# 2/6 bail to the petitioner in connection with Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 04/2026 under Section 123 of BNS, read with Section 22(c) of ND&PS Act, 1985 (Corresponding in GR Case No. 27/2026). 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 07.01.2026, the petitioner was apprehended while he was riding his motorbike in course of naka checking at Amlapatty Road, under Lakhipur P.S., Goalpara and upon search, a commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen capsules, in total 2160 numbers of capsules were recovered from one blue colour carry bag and two black colour polythene bags which was with the apprehended person. The entire proceeding was videographed. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a body search of the petitioner was carried out without complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and although the recovery was allegedly made from some bags in the possession of the petitioner, since the body search of the petitioner was carried out, compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act was mandatory, regardless of the fact that no recovery was made from the body of the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Anr. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the charge-sheet Page No.# 3/6 submitted in the case, wherein, it is clearly stated that a body search of the petitioner was carried out and it is also stated that upon conducting a personal search of the suspect, the aforesaid items were recovered. It is further stated in the charge-sheet that notice under Section NDPS Act was also served to the apprehended accused person informing him of his rights under the NDPS Act. 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act has been complied with as is evident from the contents of the charge-sheet itself. Furthermore, it is submitted that since the recovery was made from the plastic carry bags and not from the body of the petitioner, compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act was not necessary. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Mehboob Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2026 INSC 729, in support of her submissions. 7. Although it has been stated in the charge-sheet that the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have been complied with, no written notice under the aforesaid provision is available in the case records and despite sufficient opportunity, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was not able to produce any such notice. While it is true that section 50 of the NDPS Act does not specifically require a written notice thereunder, in order to establish that the provisions thereof have been complied with, a mere statement of such compliance may not Page No.# 4/6 be sufficient. Furthermore, none of the independent search and seizure witnesses have deposed to any such fact that the petitioner was informed of his right to be searched in front of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate before his body search was carried out. Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has failed to convincingly show that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was complied with. 8. As regards the question as to whether there was any necessity to comply with the said provision since the recovery was not made from the body search of the petitioner, but from the carry bag found with the petitioner, it is perhaps rightly contended by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that when the recovery is made from any bag or other kind of container, suitcase etc., the requirement of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not there. 9. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mehboob Shah (Supra), the protection under Section 50 is confined to cases where the recovery is sought to be effected through the personal search of the accused and it has no application where the search is of an article such as a bag, container, suitcase or any other object which the accused may be carrying. However, it has also been clarified in Parmanand (Supra) after referring to the decisions in Dalip & Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 450 and Union of India v. Shah Alam reported in (2009) 16 SCC 644 as follows:- “14. In Union of India v. Shah Alam'°, heroin was first recovered from the Page No.# 5/6 bags carried by the respondents therein. Thereafter, their personal search was taken but nothing was recovered from their person. It was urged that since personal search did not lead to any recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Following Dilip , it was held that since the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, the High Court was right in acquitting the respondents on that ground. 15. Thus, if merely a bag carried by a person is searched without there being any search of his person, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have no application. But if the bag carried by him is searched and his person is also searched, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have application. In this case, Respondent 1 Parmanand's bag was searched. From the bag, opium was recovered. His personal search was also carried out. Personal search of Respondent 2 Surajmal was also conducted. Therefore, in the light of the f judgments of this Court mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have application.” 10. In the instant case, it is not disputed that body search of the petitioner was in fact carried out, although the recovery was made from the bags being carried by him. In view of the fact that due compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been prima facie established, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner Page No.# 6/6 namely, Hanif Ali shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, 1 of them being a Government servant. It is further provided that the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial. 12. The observations made herein are confined to the instant bail application and shall have no bearing in any other proceeding. 13. The petition stands allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant