[2026:RJ-JP:21940] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 4626/2026 Roshan Khan S/o Kyamudeen, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mannat Residency 3Rd Floor, Gloden Bakery, Jhotwara, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur. (At Present Confined Central Jail Jaipur Since 05.12.2023) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zakir Hussain Adv. Xenia Khan Mr. Zaid Khan 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.902/2023 registered with the Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) for offence under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 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 05.12.2023, the inventory of the same was prepared on 19.01.2024, however, the samples of the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’) on [2026:RJ-JP:21940] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-4626/2026] 29.01.2024, that is, by a delay of ten days’, whereas in the law it is provided that the samples were required to be sent to 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 05.12.2023. He has also referred the statement of the Seizure Officer, who has been examined as PW-12 and submits that the Seizure Officer has failed to give explanation with regard to delay of ten (10) days’ in sending the samples to the FSL. He also submits that the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on [2026:RJ-JP:21940] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-4626/2026] 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. 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. 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 05.12.2023, the inventory of the same was prepared on 19.01.2024 and the samples of the same were sent to the FSL on 29.01.2024. 6. As per the statements of the Seizure Officer PW-12, there is no explanation with regard to sending the samples to the FSL by a delay of ten (10) days’, whereas, as per the law provided, the samples are required to be sent for FSL within seventy two (72) hours of the inventory. 7. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:21940] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-4626/2026] 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. 8. 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 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.” 9. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above and more particularly the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody for last more than two years, this Court taking into consideration the right of the accused-petitioner of speedy trial, as provided under Section [2026:RJ-JP:21940] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-4626/2026] 21 of the Constitution of India, without making any comments on the merit and demerit of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 10. 10. 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 30/ARTI SHARMA