[2026:RJ-JP:21942] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 8105/2026 Pintu Son Of Pukhraj, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Vishnoiyo Ki Dhani, Hinganiya, Police Station Pipad City, District Jodhpur ( Raj.) ( Lodged In District Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Rawal thorugh Video Conferencing For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 22/05/2026 1. The accused-petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No.387/2023 registered with the Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer for offence under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act and Section 482 IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that as per the facts on record, the recovery of the alleged contraband is said to have been made from the possession of the accused-petitioner on 11.08.2023, the inventory of the same was prepared on 31.08.2023, however, the samples of the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’) on 29.11.2023, that is, by a delay of about three months’, whereas in the law, it is provided that the samples were required to be sent to [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] the FSL within seventy two (72) hours. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also referred the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Wajid Ali @ Tinku Vs. State of Raj. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7049/2025), decided on 09.02.2026, wherein the account of delay in sending the samples to the FSL beyond the period of seventy two (72) hours, have been taken into consideration and the accused, therein, have been ordered to be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also referred the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in case of Tamir Ali Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau (Bail Application No.3718/2022, decided on 22.05.2023. He has also referred the order of this Court passed in case of Shayam Pratap Singh Vs. State of Raj. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No.13781/2025), decided on 27.03.2026. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2023 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this third bail application and submits that there is a recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused-petitioner, which is more than commercial quantity and in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled to be released on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available on record. 5. This Court, while dismissing the second bail application of the accused-petitioner vide order dated 03.10.2025, directed the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same as early as possible and simultaneously, the prosecution was directed to get examined the prosecution witnesses. However, till date, only nineteen (19) prosecution witnesses out of twenty nine (29), have been examined. 6. As per the facts on record, the recovery of the alleged contraband is said to have been made from the possession of the accused-petitioner on 11.08.2023, the inventory of the same was prepared on 31.08.2023 and the samples of the same were sent to the FSL on 29.11.2023. There is no explanation with regard to sending the samples to the FSL by a delay of three months’, whereas, as per the law provided, the samples are required to be sent for FSL within seventy two (72) hours of the inventory. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Wajid Ali @ Tinku (supra) in Para Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 has held as under:- “3. Most of the material witnesses have been examined. 4. The argument is that the petitioners were arrested on 28.03.2023 and that they have been in jail for more than two years and ten months. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) after 21 days for which there is no appropriate explanation. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] circumstances, we consider it proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the trial Court commensurating with the charges, if any, framed against them including surrendering of their passport, if any, with the Trial Court itself.” 8. Article 21 of the Constitution of India speaks that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The criminal jurisprudence as regards the speedy trial, is based on special principle that innocent (suspect) person should not be subjected to custody for indefinite period without there being any effective progress in the trial. It is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that victim should get justice as early as the legal system can provide. It is also the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person until and unless held guilty after due process of trial / inquiry, he is said to be innocent. The legislative framework that is provisions of Cr.P.C./ B.N.S.S, 2023 provides various provisions for speedy trial. 9. Though the speedy trial has not been specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, however, in view of the language of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, speedy trial has been interpreted as a fundamental right in various judgments like - Maneka Gandhi V/s Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (in Criminal Appeal [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] No.----/2024) arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8781/2024, decided on 09.08.2024 has observed as follows:- "34. In this respect, we may also gainfully refer to one of the recent pronouncements by a bench of this Court to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a member in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, which reads thus: “21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala3:— “7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.”” 38. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement5 was considering an application of the petitioner therein who was SLP(Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024 to receive a bribe of rupees five crore and from whom, an amount of Rs.46,00,000/- was already recovered. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 26th January 2022 in connection with FIR No. 402/2021 registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC and Section 4/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. He was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 18th January 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by the ED on 21st June 2023. The Court observed thus: “7. Adverting to the prayer for grant of bail in the instant case, it is pointed out by learned counsel for ED that the complaint case is at the stage of framing of charges and 24 witnesses are proposed to be examined. The conclusion of proceedings, thus, will take some reasonable time. The petitioner has [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] already been in custody for more than a year. Taking into consideration the period spent in custody and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the predicate offence, and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the rigours of Section 45 of the Act can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.” 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh; Criminal Appeal No. 475/2025, decided on 29.01.2025 has observed as follows:- "......While dealing with an extraordinary situation arising out of the long incarceration of undertrial prisoners, this Court directed that in certain cases, the prisoners shall be released on bail after they complete a certain period of imprisonment. The directions issued were by way of a one-time measure. This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed. If we interpret the judgment of this Court in such a manner, the Courts will be powerless to grant bail or relief of suspension of sentence even if a case is made out on merits. Therefore, in our view, if a case is made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence. 6. In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] 7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner submitted that the power of the Court was constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is applicable even at the stage of an appeal. He relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dadu vs. State of Maharashtra2. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of 2 (2000) 8 SCC 437 releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 11. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the statements of two prosecution witnesses examined so far and more particularly the fact that incarceration of the accused petitioner is more than two and a half years and only two witnesses out of total 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, this Court, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited above, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.” 12. The provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot curtail the right of liberty, if there is delay in the trial and the said delay is not attributed to the accused. This Court while dismissing the second bail application vide order dated 03.10.2025 ordered for expediting the trial but, till date only nineteen(19), out of twenty nine(29) prosecution witnesses, have been examined. 13. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, [2026:RJ-JP:21942] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-8105/2026] without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 14. Accordingly, this third bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 31/ARTI SHARMA