Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010179102026 2026:GAU-AS:13019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2432/2026 RAJU BORO S/O LATE DIPAK BORO, R/O SILA KARAIBARI, PS CHANGSARI, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 08.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 as Page No.# 2/5 amended up to date praying for granting bail being to the accused/petitioner in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. 202/2026 u/s 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The allegations against the petitioner is that on 13.08.2026 the informant lodged an F.I.R before the Officer-in-Charge of Changsari Police station alleging inter-alia that on 13.08.2026 at 6.30 pm, acting on reliable information regarding illicit drug peddling in the Sila-Changsari area and accordingly a police team conducted searched the residence of the accused person after obtaining necessary authorization. During search 15 vials containing suspected heroin, 410 empty vials, 3 mobile phones, 1 TVS Raider motorcycle, Rs. 8,170/- cash and other articles were recovered and seized in presence of the independent witnesses after compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act. Hence the case. 4. Upon receipt of the F.I.R, the same was registered as Changsari P.S Case No- 202/2026 under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the FIR wherein it has been stated that a search of the petitioner was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses after complying with the legal requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Further attention of the Court has been drawn to the said written notice under Section 50 said to have been issued to the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner, and it is pointed out that there is no indication therein as to whether the petitioner agreed to be searched by the police officer or chose to exercise his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 6. For the purpose of better appreciation, the aforesaid notice under Section 50 is reproduced here in below: “NAME OF ORGANIZATION OFFICE/UNIT (NOTICE U/S 50 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985) To, Raju Boro (33 yrs) S/o Dipak Boro R/o Shilakarayabari, PS- Changsari Div – Kamrup Subj: Notice Under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Whereas there is reason to believe that Narcotic Drug/Psychotropic Substances/Controlled Substances and/or documents, articles and things which may furnish evidence of commission of an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 are in your permission, therefore, your personal search is to be conducted by the undersigned. If you so require, such search will be conducted in presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Date:13.08.2026 Signature: (Name and designation of the office) Statement of Raju Boro (the person about to be treated) I have been informed and have understood the notice of personal search under Page No.# 4/5 Section 50 of the NDPS Act. I required/do not require that my personal search may be conducted in presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Witnesses: Signature of the person 1. Sanjib Boro Sri. Raju Boro s/o Lt. Jatin Boro Vill - Sila haloguri Chowk P.S. – Changsari Mb No. 6003156864 2. Sri. Naba Boro S/o Lt. Kulen Ch Boro Vill – Sila haloguri Chowk P.S. – Changsari Mb No. 8876011354 7. As can be seen from the above, there is no indication in the statement of the petitioner at the bottom of the said notice indicating whether he required or did not require that his personal search be conducted in the presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. 8. Further, on perusal of the statements of the independent witnesses, it is seen that neither of the two independent witnesses has stated that the accused was informed of his aforesaid right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, nor as to what option was exercised by the petitioner in response to such information. 9. From the above, it prima facie appears that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Page No.# 5/5 10. In the case of State of Punjab Vs Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the question of violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was a matter to be determined at trial and the proceedings should not be cut short on account of such allegation. 11. Presently, here we are concerned with a bail application, and in view of the aforesaid prima facie findings regarding Section 50 of the NDPS Act, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. 13. It is further provided that the petitioner shall participate in the trial in the event of the charge sheet being filed and shall not try to influence or tamper with the evidence. 14. The bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant