1. The question that falls for determination in these applications for regular bail is whether the safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) extends to situations where the suspect, without being subjected to a formal search, voluntarily retrieves and surrenders the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance concealed on his person to the detecting officer.

2. The applicants, arraigned as accused in the offences under the NDPS Act, seek regular bail, resting their plea primarily on the alleged infraction of Section 50.

3. BA No. 3224/2026 pertains to Crime No. 104/2024 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range Office, Wayanad. The applicant therein is the sole accused. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case in short is that on 20/7/2024 at about 6.30 p.m, the applicant was found in possession of 160.77 grams of Methamphetamine while he was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing Regn.No.KL-15 A-2539 as a passenger.

4. BA No.2821/2026 pertains to Crime No.82/2025 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range Office, Wayanad. The applicant is the accused No.3 therein. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case in short is that on 8/7/2025 at 11.15 a.m., the accused No.1 was found in possession of 131.925 grams of Methamphetamine and 460 grams of Ganja while he was travelling in a bus bearing Regn.No.TN 73 AK 6262. It is alleged that the applicant conspired with the accused No.1 and the remaining accused to procure the contraband.

5. BA No.3851/2026 pertains to Crime No.20/2026 of Chelannur Excise Range Office, Kozhikode. The applicant therein is the sole accused. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case in short is that on 18/6/2026 at 12.40 a.m, the applicant was found in possession of 11.78 grams of Methamphetamine at room No.4 on the ground floor of IQ room in building No.16/346 of Chelannur Panchayath, Ambalathukulangara Desom, Chelannur Village, Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District where he was residing.

6. The applicant in BA No.3224/2026 was arrested on 20/7/2024, the applicant in BA No.2821/2026 was arrested on 9/7/2025, the applicant in BA No.3851/2026 was arrested on 8/6/2026, and since then they are in judicial custody.

7. I have heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah and Sri.M.Devesh, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diaries.

8. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the contraband in all the cases was alleged to have been recovered from the body of the accused and therefore strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. The learned counsel further submitted that since there was total violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the search and seizure were vitiated and the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the applicants took the contraband and handed it over to the detecting officer without any body search, there was no necessity for compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

9. Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandates strict procedural safeguards during personal searches. It provides that if the person to be searched so requires, the officer who is about to search him under the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the NDPS Act shall, without unnecessary delay, take him to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the NDPS Act or to the nearest Magistrate. To afford such an opportunity to the person to be searched, he must be aware of his right, and that can be done only by the authorised officer informing him. The provision implicitly obliges the authorised officer to inform the person to be searched of their right. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [1999 KHC 707] has made it clear that it is the duty of the empowered officer, before conducting the body search of a suspect based on prior information, to inform him that he has the right to require that the search be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and that the failure to do so would render the search illegal.

10. In none of the cases was the body search of the accused conducted by the detecting officer. Instead, the accused took the contraband from their body and handed it over to the detecting officer. In Crime Nos. 104/2024 and 82/2025, the accused from whom the contraband was seized were travelling in a bus. In Crime No. 104/2024, after the apprehension of the accused, the detecting officer questioned him. At that time, the accused revealed that he was in possession of Methamphetamine. Then the detecting officer directed the accused to hand over the said contraband. Accordingly, the accused took the contraband from the right pocket of the track suit worn by him and handed it over to the detecting officer. In Crime No. 82/2025, the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused No.1 who was travelling in the bus. The seizure mahazar would show that when the accused No.1 saw the detecting officer, he was perplexed, and thereafter the detecting officer intercepted and questioned him. The detecting officer found something bulging in the left pocket of his pants. Then the detecting officer asked him to take the same out of his pocket and show it to him. Accordingly, he took it out and handed it over to the detecting officer. On examination, it was found to contain Methamphetamine. Therefore, in both the above crimes, the accused took the contraband from the pants worn by them and handed it over to the detecting officer in compliance of the direction of the detecting officer to do so. Before giving such a direction, the detecting officer had reason to believe that the accused had concealed contraband in their body.

11. Section 50 is attracted when the detecting officer is ‘about to search’ any ‘person'. It is settled law that the expression ‘person’ in Section 50 extends to the clothing worn by the individual. The NDPS Act does not define ‘search’ as a standalone term in Section 2; rather, its meaning is derived contextually from operative provisions—Section 41 (warrants), Section 42 (buildings and conveyances), Section 43 (public places), and Section 50 (personal search)—all of which contemplate the investigative act of inspecting, examining, or probing a person, place, or vehicle for illicit substances or incriminating material. The word ‘search’ in sub-section (1) of Section 50 connotes an exploratory examination or probing into or seeking out something which is hidden, sealed or suspected and not what is already open or exposed [see Duraisingan and Senthil v. State, Inspector of Police, Madras, 1993 SCC OnLine Mad. 500]. Accordingly, a search need not always involve express frisking, pat-down, or rummaging of pockets by the detecting officer. Where the suspect, upon confrontation or direction by the detecting officer, produces contraband from his own person, the recovery so effected amounts to a seizure pursuant to an implied search. An ‘implied search’ arises when the apparent “voluntary” production is in fact compelled or ordered, thereby constituting a personal search within the meaning of Section 50. Such implied searches demand strict compliance with Section 50 safeguards. Conversely, where the suspect spontaneously and without any demand or direction hands over contraband in his possession, the act is one of voluntary production, not a search—much less an implied search—and Section 50 does not apply. Thus, the statutory obligation to inform the suspect of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate remains mandatory whenever contraband is produced at the instance or order of the detecting officer. Investigating agencies cannot circumvent these safeguards by characterising compelled handovers as voluntary production.

12. The seizure mahazars and the remand reports would show that the recovery in Crime Nos. 82/2025 and 20/2026 was based on prior information, whereas the recovery in Crime No. 104/2024 was a chance recovery without any prior information. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would be applicable where the search or seizure has been conducted based on prior information and that the said provision does not apply where search or seizure is effected suddenly during the course of routine duties of the officers concerned. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994 Cri.LJ. 3702) is relied upon for this proposition. It was observed in paragraph 26(1) of the judgment thus:

                  "26(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence as provided under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and when such search is completed at that stage, S.50 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance (of) recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act."

                  When the above observations are read in their factual context, it becomes evident that Section 50 of the NDPS Act cannot be confined to situations where search or seizure is effected solely based on prior information. The Court clarified that where a police officer, acting without prior information under the NDPS Act, conducts a search or arrest in the ordinary course of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such search is completed, Section 50 would not be attracted. Equally significant is the holding that if, during such search or arrest, there arises a chance recovery of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, the officer must thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. Even if the officer is otherwise empowered under the Act, from that stage onwards, the investigation must conform to its statutory requirements.

13. Thus, the determinative criterion for the applicability of Section 50 is not whether the search or seizure was predicated upon prior information, but whether the officer, in effecting a search under Sections 41, 42 or 43 of the NDPS Act, had the opportunity to comply with its mandate. The emphasis in the judgment was that where, in the normal course of investigation, an officer encounters an accused and conducts a search without any contemplation that it would disclose an NDPS offence, and the search is already completed by the time such discovery is made, Section 50 does not arise. Accordingly, the applicability of Section 50 cannot be tethered exclusively to searches based on prior information. The true test lies in whether the search was undertaken under the NDPS Act with an opportunity to comply with its safeguards [see Varadapureddi Simmanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 Crl.LJ 2465].

14. As stated already, the detecting officer in Crime Nos.104/2024 and 82/2025 directed the accused to take the contraband from their pockets and hand it over to him and accordingly, in compliance of the said direction, the latter handed over the contraband to the former. Therefore, strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was necessary. It is settled that non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act can be considered by courts at the bail stage to satisfy that the accused is not guilty prima facie, bypassing Section 37 restrictions. [see Basanth Balram v. State of Kerala, 2019 (1) KLT 523]. The embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable if there is total non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Since there is total non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the applicants in BA Nos.2821 and 3224/2026 are entitled to be released on bail.

15. Coming to the facts in Crime No.20/2026, the records would show that while the detecting officer was conducting search in the room occupied by the accused, the accused spontaneously and voluntarily took a cover containing contraband from the front of his jeans pants and handed it over to the detecting officer without any demand or direction from the detecting officer. Before such handing over by the accused, the detecting officer did not entertain any idea about the possession of the contraband by the accused or have any opportunity to comply with the provisions of Section 50. Hence, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the said situation. The applicant therein has criminal antecedents. He is involved in two other crimes of similar nature; one under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and another one under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

16. In the result, BA Nos.2821 and 3224/2026 are allowed on the following conditions: -

                  (i) The applicants shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicants shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

                  (iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

                  (iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

                  (v) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

                  (vi) The applicants shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

                  (vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

17. It is made clear that the observation regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act made in this order is for the limited purpose of considering the bail applications.

BA No.3851/2026 stands dismissed.