1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.301/2026 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad District. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act).

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.04.2026 at 19:20 hours, at Vilayur, Pulinchod, the applicant was found in possession of 2.540 grams of MDMA in the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-55-Y-1214 and thereby committed the above offence.

4. I have heard Sri.Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V. Vinay, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the applicant and his relative, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. It was also submitted that there is total non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials collected during the investigation clearly point to the guilt of the applicant. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor further submitted that the mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS that the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrestee and his near relatives has been complied with scrupulously. As regards the contention based on the violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it was pointed out that, as it was a case of chance recovery, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not required. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh [1994 HKC 798], State of H.P. v. Sunil Kumar [2014 KHC 4176], and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [1999 KHC 707]. The learned Public Prosecutor added that the applicant has criminal antecedents and is involved in crimes of a similar nature and, therefore, there is no reason to release him on bail.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2026. I reviewed the case diary. It shows that the grounds for arrest were communicated to the applicant and his relative, and all formalities in accordance with Chapter V of the BNSS were followed. Notices served on the applicant and his relative under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, respectively, show that, at the time of the applicant's arrest, the specific grounds, reasons for arrest and the quantity of contraband seized were conveyed to both. Therefore, there has been adequate compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

7. 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 makes it obligatory on the authorised officer to inform the person to be searched of their right. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh (supra) 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 failure to do so would render the search illegal. The crucial question involved in this case is whether the provisions of Section 50 would apply when there is a chance recovery of a narcotic drug during a personal or body search.

8. A ‘chance recovery’ refers to the accidental or unexpected discovery of contraband by police or enforcement officers during routine duties (like regular patrols) without any prior specific information. In Mohinder Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa [(1998) 8 SCC 655], the Supreme Court considered a chance recovery as one when a Police Officer "stumbles on" narcotic drugs when he makes a search. In Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 13 SCC 608], the Police Officer, while searching for illicit liquor, accidentally found some charas. This was treated as a ‘chance recovery’. In Sunil Kumar (supra), the police officers were looking for passengers who were travelling ticketless and nothing more. They accidentally or unexpectedly came across drugs carried by a passenger. It was held that the said recovery can only be described as a recovery by chance since they were neither looking for drugs nor expecting to find drugs carried by anybody.

9. The issue whether the accidental or chance recovery of narcotic drugs during a personal search attracts the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is no longer res integra. The Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh (supra) categorically held that where an empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated under Section 42, conducts a search or effects an arrest in the ordinary course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence, and contraband under the NDPS Act is recovered incidentally, the requirements of Section 50 are not attracted. This view reaffirmed the earlier pronouncement in Balbir Singh (supra), wherein it was held that if a police officer, acting under the provisions of the Cr.P.C and without prior specific information, conducts a search or arrest in the normal course of investigation, Section 50 obligations do not arise. In such circumstances, if contraband is fortuitously recovered, a non-empowered officer must forthwith inform the empowered officer, who shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the NDPS Act; if the officer is himself empowered, he must from that stage continue the investigation under the Act. In Sunil Kumar (supra), the Court reiterated that recovery of contraband on body search of the accused constitutes chance recovery, and compliance with Section 50 is unnecessary. More recently, in Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262], it was clarified that Section 50 applies only to searches of the person under the NDPS Act, and not to searches conducted under other statutes. Where contraband under the NDPS Act is recovered during a search under another statute, the NDPS Act provisions apply prospectively from that stage, though Section 50 need not be complied with since the search has already been effected. The principle is thus well settled: in cases of chance recovery—where narcotic substances are stumbled upon unexpectedly during routine investigation or checks, rather than acting on prior specific information—the procedural safeguard under Section 50 does not apply.

10. Annexure A2 is the remand report. It would show that the recovery from the applicant was a chance recovery without any prior information. The applicant was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-55-Y-1214 on 22.04.2026. When he reached Vilayur, Pulinchod at 07:20 p.m., the police party intercepted him, suspecting that he had some illegal firearms in his possession, and searched his body. On such a search, it was found that he had kept the contraband in his pocket. The police officer had no reason to believe that the applicant was carrying any narcotic drug. It was plainly a chance recovery, and hence it was not necessary to comply with Section 50.

11. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusations made against the applicant are serious in nature and prima facie show a premeditated act on his part. Moreover, the applicant is involved in crimes of a similar nature.

Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.