Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010132402026 2026:GAU-AS:13065 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1750/2026 MUHIN AHMED SON OF LATE FAIZUL ISLAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE EAST KANISHAIL, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. 2: SALMAN AHMED S/O LUKU MIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE EAST KANISHAIL PS KARIMGANJ DIST SRIBHUMI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY 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 petitioners. Also heard learned Additional Page No.# 2/6 Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the petitioner, who are in custody since 20.08.2025 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 10/2026 arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 386/2025 registered under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Sribhumi. 3. 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 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. 4. For the purpose of better appreciation, the aforesaid notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is reproduced here in below: “ NOTICE U/S 50 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 To, Muhin Ahmed (32 yrs) S/o Lt. Faizul Islam Page No.# 3/6 Vill – East Kanishail PS- Karimganj Subj: Notice Under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 Ref: Kxj PS G.D.E No. 12 Dated – 19.08.2025 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 possession, 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:…………… Signature: (Name and Designation of Officer) Statement of Muhin Ahmed (the person about to be searched): I have been informed and I have understood the Notice of Personal Search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. I require/do not require that my personal search may be conducted in presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Signature and Name of the Person: Witnesses: 1. Anik Das 2. Sanjit Nath 5. 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. Page No.# 4/6 6. 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. 7. From the above, it prima facie appears that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. 8. In the instant case, the recovery has been stated to have been made from a bag, which was being carried by the petitioners and not from the body search of the said petitioners. However, since body search was conducted, due compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS act is mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs Parmanand & Anr reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345, wherein it had been held 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. 9. 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 was to be determined by the Court on the basis of evidence led at Page No.# 5/6 the trial and without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish compliance with Section 50 at that trial, it would not be advisable to cut short a criminal trial. 10. 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. 11. Further, in view of the aforesaid finding, the other points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding violation of other statutory provisions need not detain the Court for the purpose of disposing of the present application. 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 allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant