Long Custody, 21-Day Delay in Sending Sample to FSL: Supreme Court Grants NDPS Bail

Wajid Ali @ Tinku v. State of Rajasthan Decided 9 February 2026

Published: 14 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Wajid Ali @ Tinku v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 7049/2025), the Supreme Court granted bail on 09.02.2026 to the petitioners in an NDPS case from Jhalawar, Rajasthan. Most material witnesses had been examined, the petitioners had been in jail for more than two years and ten months since their arrest on 28.03.2023, and the sample was sent to the FSL after 21 days without an appropriate explanation (paras 3-6).

Long Custody, 21-Day Delay in Sending Sample to FSL: Supreme Court Grants NDPS Bail

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted

Wajid Ali @ Tinku v. State of Rajasthan

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7049 of 2025 with SLP (Crl.) No. 9728 of 2025

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 9 February 2026
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Final Outcome

Special leave petitions disposed of: the petitioners in both SLPs were directed to be released on bail on terms to be imposed by the Trial Court, including surrender of passport, if any (paras 5-7).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 9 February 2026 · Court's copy

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

The Supreme Court enlarged the petitioners in both SLPs on bail in an NDPS case, on terms to be fixed by the Trial Court (paras 5-6).
The facts relied on were custody since 28.03.2023, of more than two years and ten months, and the examination of most material witnesses (paras 3-5).
The order recorded that the sample was sent to the FSL after 21 days with no appropriate explanation (para 4).
The order does not state the NDPS section or the quantity, does not mention Section 37 and cites no precedent (para 2).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioners were charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on FIR No. 44 of 2023, registered at Police Station Mandawar, District Jhalawar (para 2). The order does not state the section, the substance or the quantity. Wajid Ali @ Tinku challenged the order of 04.04.2025 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in SBCRMSBA No. 3396/2025. SLP (Crl.) No. 9728/2025, against a separate High Court order of 06.05.2025, was tagged with his petition. On 21.08.2025 the Court recorded that 8 of 17 cited witnesses had been examined and expected all to be examined within three months. On 15.12.2025 three witnesses still remained, and it directed the Trial Court to complete their examination.

Court's Findings

At the hearing on 09.02.2026, the Court recorded that most of the material witnesses had been examined (para 3). The order records the argument that the petitioners were arrested on 28.03.2023 and had been in jail for more than two years and ten months, and states that the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after 21 days, ‘for which there is no appropriate explanation’ (para 4). ‘In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances’, the Court considered it proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail (para 5). It left the terms to the Trial Court: the petitioners were to be released on conditions the Trial Court might impose in keeping with the charges, if any, framed against them, including surrender of their passports, if any (para 6). The order gives no further reasons. It does not mention Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the quantity seized or any reply by the State on the delay in sending the sample. It cites no precedent and says nothing on the merits. Both petitions and the pending applications were disposed of (paras 7-8).

Legal Principle

The order lays down no new rule. It shows the Supreme Court granting bail in an NDPS case on a combination of facts: custody of more than two years and ten months, most material witnesses examined, and a 21-day delay in sending the sample to the FSL that was not appropriately explained (paras 3-5).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For an NDPS accused seeking bail, this order shows the Supreme Court acting on long custody, a trial in which most material witnesses had been examined, and a 21-day delay in sending the sample to the FSL without an appropriate explanation (paras 3-5). A bail plea should set out the arrest date, the witnesses examined and the sampling dates, with the record. The order does not discuss Section 37 or state the quantity, so it is an example on its facts, not a rule. Compare Gulzar Ahmad Khan Pathan v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on prolonged pre-trial incarceration in NDPS bail, and Sitaram alias Udham Meena v. State of Rajasthan on sampling of seized contraband.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Statutory Provisions: NDPS Act