Compliance with Section 50 under NDPS is not required for searches yielding commercial quantities.

ORDER

This bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.29/2025 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram; registered for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS).

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner was found in possession of

0.82 grams of MDMA in his body and also in possession of further 106.54 grams of MDMA from the table in a room occupied by the petitioner in a hotel by name, ‘CK Regency’, and thereby committed the offences alleged. The petitioner was arrested on 02.05.2025 and he has been in custody since then.

4. Heard Smt.Keerthi Jayanandhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, as the petitioner was searched without the presence of a gazetted ofÏcer. It was also submitted that petitioner has been in custody from 02.05.2025, and hence, the long period of custody itself is sufÏcient to release him on bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the procedure required under law has been complied with, and further, that 106.54 grams of MDMA was recovered from the table in the room occupied by the petitioner in a hotel and therefore, there is no requirement to have a gazetted ofÏcer to conduct such a search. It was also submitted that procedural irregularities or illegalities in a search are matters to be considered at the time of trial, as observed by the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372 , .

Hence, the contentions are of no bearing.

7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. The prosecution records reveal that the petitioner was found to be in possession of 0.82 grams of MDMA and a further 105.72 grams of MDMA which was retrieved from the table inside the room occupied by him in CK Regency. Since the requirement under Section 50 of the Act mandates that the search of persons shall be conducted in the presence of a gazetted ofÏcer, in the instant case, even going by the contentions, large quantity of MDMA was recovered from the room where the petitioner was staying, the said requirement of a gazetted ofÏcer is not necessary.

9. Even otherwise in view of the decision in Kashif’s case (supra), the irregularities or illegalities in the search are matters which would not entitle the accused to be released on bail especially when commercial quantity is recovered. Apart from the above, the investigation is still in progress and the petitioner was arrested only on 02.05.2025. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to release the petitioner on bail, and hence, it is dismissed.