Kerala HC: Section 50 NDPS Compliance Mandatory Even If Accused Hands Over Contraband Himself [Read Order]

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is mandatory whenever a body search is conducted, even in cases where the accused himself takes out the contraband from his pocket and hands it over to the detecting officer, while granting bail to a man arrested with 52.45 grams of MDMA.

Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath was considering a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by Vishnu NP, aged 30, the sole accused in Crime No.697/2025 registered at the Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode District, for an offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The application was directed against an order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Bail Appl. No.12603 of 2025, by which an earlier plea for regular bail had been rejected.

According to the prosecution case, at 01:15 hours on 12.07.2025, the applicant was found in possession of 52.45 grams of MDMA at a footpath in Thamarassery. He has been in judicial custody since the date of his arrest, and the case has proceeded on the footing that the seizure was made during a body search conducted by the police while they were on patrol duty in the area.

Sri M. Devesh, counsel for the applicant, submitted that there was a total violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which vitiated the search and seizure and entitled the applicant to bail. Sri Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, contending that since the applicant himself had taken the contraband out of his pocket and handed it over to the detecting officer, compliance with Section 50 was not required at all.

Perusing the seizure mahazar and the remand report, the court noted that the detecting officer, while on patrol duty, had found the applicant standing by the roadside and looking perplexed upon seeing him. The officer intercepted the applicant and conducted a search of his body, during which he noticed something bulging in the front pocket of his pants. The applicant was then asked to take it out, and he handed it over to the officer, on examination of which it was found to contain MDMA.

The court held that this was, in substance, a case where the contraband was seized pursuant to a body search, notwithstanding that the applicant himself produced it from his pocket. Rejecting the prosecution's contention, the court observed that "it is mandatory that Section 50 of the NDPS Act be complied with" whenever a body search is conducted, and found that the prosecution had no case at all that such compliance had taken place. Section 50 confers a valuable right on a person about to be searched to be informed of, and to exercise, his option of being searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, and courts have consistently held that failure to extend this safeguard, where a body search is undertaken, renders the consequent recovery of contraband suspect.

In light of this finding, the court held that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail in offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances, could not be attributed to the applicant. Section 37 ordinarily requires the court to be satisfied, based on reasonable grounds, that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail, before bail can be granted. Since the seizure itself was found to be tainted by non-compliance with Section 50, the court held that this stringent threshold did not stand attracted in the applicant's case. Noting that the applicant had been in custody since 12.07.2025 and that no purpose would be served by his continued detention, the court allowed the bail application.

The applicant was directed to be released on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. He was directed to fully cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. every Saturday until further orders, besides as and when required. The applicant was further restrained from committing any offence of a like nature while on bail, from contacting or influencing prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence, and from leaving the State of Kerala without the trial court's permission. Any application for modification of the bail conditions or for cancellation of bail was directed to be filed before the jurisdictional court.

Appearances: Sri M. Devesh, Sri M. Anuroop, Shri Murshid Ali M., Smt. Jyothis Mary and Smt. S.K. Sreelakshmy appeared for the petitioner/applicant, while Sri Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, Public Prosecutor, appeared for the respondent/State.

Case Title: Vishnu NP versus State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 3181 of 2026

[Read Order]