Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010163792026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2247/2026 JABIR UDDIN S/O ABDUL SALAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KANDIGRAM, DASGRAM, P.S.- NILAMBAZAR, DIST.- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 26.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the petitioner, who was arrested on 28.02.2026 and have been forwarded for remand before the learned CJM, Sribhumi on 01.03.2026 in connection with Nilambazar P.S. Case No. 20/2026, registered under Page No.# 2/4 Section 22 (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the body search of the petitioner has been conducted and alleged commercial quantity of contraband have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the alleged body search where the contraband has been allegedly recovered, the petitioner has not been given the right to refuse his body search in the absence of a Gazette Officer or the Magistrate. He accordingly submitted that the body search of the petitioner has been rendered illegal and the continued detention of the petitioner thereafter, on the allegation of carrying commercial quantity of contraband on his body, is rendered illegal. Accordingly, he prayed that the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail at this stage for the reason that that the further detention of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. 4. The learned APP has submitted that the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been served upon the petitioner informing him about the contents of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and after being so informed, the petitioner had agreed to have his body searched without the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had never been informed about his right to have refused the body search by the police Officer in the absence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He has submitted that he tried to refuse his body search, but he has no other option but to agree to have his body search. 6. I have gone through the materials on record, I have gone through the Page No.# 3/4 Trial Court Record and I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. This Court, in B.A. No. 309/2026, by the order dated 20.08.2026, has held, by referring to different judgments of the Apex Court, that the information regarding his right to refuse to search his body in the absence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate having not been conveyed, the arrested accused is entitled to the privilege of bail. 8. In 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 the State of Panjab Vs. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 would not be fulfilled. 9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Suresh & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 550 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. 10. In the present case also, the provision of Section 50 does not reveal that the petitioner have been informed about his right to refuse a body search in the absence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioner is found to be entitled to the privilege of bail. Page No.# 4/4 11. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with 2 (two) sureties each of the like amount, out of which one should be the Government Officer, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi . 12. It is provided that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, without prior permission and the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi shall be at liberty to impose other conditions as may be necessary to ensure participation during the trial of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant