Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010176392026 2026:GAU-AS:12706 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2378/2026 YUMNAM RAJESH SINGH ALIAS RAJESH YUMNAM, S/O.- YUMNAM GULAPI SINGH A RESIDENT OF VILL.- ITHAI KHUNOU, IMPHAIL, P.S.- KUMBI, DIST.- BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR, INDIA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MD A ISLAM,MR. M A I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 02.09. 2026 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This is a bail application referred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with a prayer for granting regular bail to the petitioner Page No.# 2/8 in connection with NDPS case number 13 of 2026 pending before the Learned Court of Special Judge NDPS, Kamrup (Metro), with charges being framed under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Bail Application No. 1186 of 2026, which was rejected and prior to that, the petitioner had filed Bail Application No. 453 of 2026, which was allowed to be withdrawn at the request of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 08-09-2025 and, after investigation, the charge sheet had been submitted on 18-12-2025, and charges were framed on 17-02- 2026. In the earlier order dated 08-06-2026, this Court had rejected the bail petition after perusing the Trial Court Records. 4. Mr. Dutta, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the recent bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Learned Special Judge, NDPS had been rejected on 12-08-2026 and therefore the present bail petition has again been filed. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the FIR that the vehicle being driven by the petitioner was allegedly intercepted at about 6.20 p.m. on 07-09-2025 on the basis of suspicion and information received by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The contents of the FIR note that after intercepting the vehicle, the petitioner had been promptly interrogated at the location and intimated that a search of his vehicle, after following all legal procedures, would be carried out. The authorized officer had approached the independent witnesses to take part in the search Page No.# 3/8 operation. After availing the independent witnesses who were required to accompany the search party, a body search of the whole police team, including the informant, had been carried out. After that, a search operation was conducted, and the driver, who is the petitioner herein, had been asked to open the boot space of the vehicle and a lavender colored school bag was spotted in the boot space. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since a body search of the petitioner had been carried out prior to recovery of the alleged contraband from the boot of the vehicle being driven by the petitioner, in the absence of compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the arrest of the petitioner and his further detention cannot be upheld. 6. He has submitted that when the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been violated, this Court, in the case of Hanif Ali v. State of Assam, {Bail Application No. 912 of 2026, disposed of on 12-8-2026}, had held that compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would be necessary when a body search of the accused is carried out. 7. In the aforesaid order, this court had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345. This Court, in the aforesaid order, had noticed that it had been stated in the charge sheet that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been complied with, although no such compliance was evidenced by the independent witnesses. Moreover, no written notice under the aforesaid provision was available in the case records, and despite sufficient opportunity, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was not able to produce Page No.# 4/8 any such notice. This Court had observed that while it was true that Section 50 notice of the NDPS Act does not specifically require a written notice, however, a mere statement of such compliance may not be sufficient. None of the independent search and seizure witnesses had deposed to any such fact that the petitioner had been informed of his right to be searched in front of a gazetted officer or a magistrate before his body search was carried out. Noting the apparent violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and referring to Mehboob Shah reported in (2026) INSC 729, Dilip and another v. State of MP reported in (2007) 01-SCC-450 and Union of India v. Shah Alam reported in (2009) 16-SCC-644, this Court had granted bail to the petitioner therein. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2026, titled Ali Hussain v. State of Assam and others, disposed on 06-08-2026, wherein this Court had again, referring to the judgments of Parmanand (Supra) and other cases, come to a finding that when the search of an accused is carried out, regardless of the fact whether the actual recovery was made from a bag being carried by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the police to have complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In the criminal appeal, the judgment and sentence convicting the appellant therein had been set aside. 9. The learned APP, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar reported in (2005) 4 SCC 350 to submit that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act would come into play only in case of personal search of the accused and not of some Page No.# 5/8 baggage or boot of a car. The learned Additional P.P has thereafter referred to the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 where at paragraph 33, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the question whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 were observed would have to be determined by the court on the basis of evidence led at the trial and a finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish at the trial that the provisions of Section 50 and particularly the safeguards provided in that section were complied with, it would not be advisable to cut short a criminal trial. 10. He has thereafter placed reliance on paragraph-57 of the judgment which is quoted below to stress that whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the court on the basis of evidence at trial and not at the stage of considering the bail petition of the petitioner. The learned APP has thereafter drawn attention to paragraph 58 of the aforesaid judgment where the Apex Court had held that the conclusions made at paragraph 57 were not a summary of the judgment and had to be read and considered in the light of the entire discussion contained in the earlier part of the judgment. He then drew the attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph 25 of the judgment where it had been clearly held that it is not necessary to give the information under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the person to be searched about his right in writing. It is sufficient if such information is communicated to the person concerned orally and, as far as Page No.# 6/8 available, in the presence of some independent and respectable persons witnessing this arrest and search. It is only at the trial that the prosecution must establish that the empowered officer had conveyed the information to the person concerned of his right of being searched in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer at the time of the intended search. He has therefore submitted that the issue as to whether the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been followed by the empowered officer is not a matter to be decided at the stage of the bail and therefore the issues raised by the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act do not require a consideration by this Court. 11. The learned APP has thereafter referred to the contents of paragraph 94 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India reported in (2025) 6 SCC 545 wherein it was held that minor procedural lapse on the part of authorized officers may not be seen by the magnifying glass by the courts in exercise of powers of judicial review which ultimately may end up granting undue advantage or benefit to a person accused of very serious offenses under special act. The learned APP has further submitted that the accused has been found to be involved in peddling and selling drugs in the particular area for a long time and has a past criminal history being related to Jiraghat P.S. case number 39 of 2021. He has accordingly submitted that in the present case the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not allow the petitioner to be granted the privilege of bail. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and I have also gone Page No.# 7/8 through the records placed before me. On a perusal of the FIR, it appears that after intercepting the vehicle, the authorized officer had requested the independent witnesses to take part in the search operation and accordingly had got themselves searched by the independent witnesses. After that, a search operation was conducted, and the driver, who is the petitioner herein, was asked to open the boot space of the vehicle. 13. There is nothing on record to show that the body of the petitioner had been searched at the time of recovery of the contraband items. This is not to say that at the stage of trial, the contrary could not be proved. However, keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court that prior to the evidence in the trial, the courts are not required to inspect the procedures followed in investigation through magnifying glasses, I do not find any material to indicate that a body search of the petitioner had been carried out. In such circumstances, I do not find that the alleged violations of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would have bearing in the adjudication of the present bail petition. I further find that the case projected against the petitioner in the Trial being under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and in the light of the assertion made in the chargesheet that the petitioner has been found to be involved in previous cases under the NDPS Act itself, I am not convinced that the petitioner would not continue to indulge in the activities complained of. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has completed one year in custody. However, I find that the Trial has only started Page No.# 8/8 and there is no apparent delay in the same. 15. In view of the matter, I do not find this to be a proper case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. 16. This bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant