Joint communication of rights under Section 50 NDPS Act fails mandatory requirement of individual intimation.

The applicants were apprehended on September 29, 2025, near Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, for allegedly possessing contraband (Opium) weighing 4.034 kg and 3.008 kg respectively.

An F.I.R. was registered under Sections 8, 18, and 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The defense contended that the search was conducted via a joint communication and consent rather than individual intimation, and that the grounds of arrest were not provided in writing.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicants' previous criminal history involving two N.D.P.S. cases.

Whether the failure to provide individual communication of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, instead obtaining joint consent, constitutes a violation of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Whether the alleged failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing and procedural lapses regarding statutory safeguards entitle the applicants to bail despite the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The court applied Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which mandates informing the accused of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

It relied on *State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Another (2014) 5 SCC 345*, which held that joint communication does not satisfy statutory requirements.

The court further cited *Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500* regarding strict adherence to safeguards.

The court cited *Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372*, which establishes that while Section 37 sets stringent bail conditions, material procedural lapses and non-compliance with mandatory provisions must be considered during bail adjudication.

The court observed that the N.D.P.S. Act is a stringent statute requiring absolute procedural compliance.

In the present case, the court found prima facie evidence of procedural irregularity because the police provided a joint communication to both applicants regarding their search rights, rather than the mandatory individual intimation required by law.

Additionally, the court took note of the contention that the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing.

By applying the precedent that serious procedural lapses undermine the prosecution's credibility, the court determined that these irregularities, coupled with the period of incarceration, outweighed the opposition based on criminal history for the purpose of the bail application.

The bail application was allowed.

The court ordered the release of Chaman Prakash alias Lakhvinder and Mahaveer on personal bonds and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions: regular attendance at trial, no tampering with evidence/witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission.