Banwari Lal Sharma, J.

Petitioner-accused has challenged the impugned order dated 13.10.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. l, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.226/2014 while invoking revisional jurisdiction vested in this court under Section 401 Cr.P.C. By the order impugned, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. wherein he prayed for releasing him on default bail as per provisions under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.04.2014, the Station House Officer, Parsoli aong with other police official conducted ‘Nakabandi’ and at about 9:15 P.M., one Bolero bearing registration No.RJ-09 UA3696 was stopped and on search of the said vehicle, 12.5 kgs. opium was found in bags. On this, the petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2014 and FIR No.69/2014 at Police Station Parsoli was registered and petitioner accused was produced before the learned trial court for custody.

3. On 10.10.2014, petitioner-accused preferred an application for releasing him on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.Restating therein that even passing of 180 days after his arrest, prosecution failed to complete investigation and to file charge sheet against the petitioner before the Court, therefore, the Court is not authorised to remand him further and he is entitled for default bail. A copy of application was supplied to learned Special Public Prosecutor, learned Court below instead of deciding the application on same day posted it for 13.10.2014 and on that day, Special Public Prosecutor, learned Special Judge, dismissed the application of the petitioner-accused and allowed the application of Special Public Prosecutor under Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act and extended three days time for filing charge sheet and thereafter charge sheet was filed. Against the order by which the application of petitioner-accused was dismissed, this revision petition has been preferred before this Court.

4. Notice of revision petition was issued to respondent.

5. Heard Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, learned counsel or the petitioner and Mr.Deepak Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order and available record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Thanvi submitted that after completion of 180 days, as per provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., Police failed to complete investigation and file challan. As per the provisions of Section 167(2) the application should have been decided on the same day but instead of deciding it on same day, learned Court below posted it for 13.10.2014 and on that date, after completion of 180 days prosecution filed an application for extending time which should not have been entertained. He further submits that after expiry of 180 days, the right of bail was accrued in favour of the petitioner-accused and to frustrate that right, such application is not permissible but the learned Court below without considering these aspects wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner-accused, therefore, the revision petition of the petitioner may be allowed and impugned order may be quashed and set aside and petitioner accused may be released on default bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Union of India through CBI v. Nirmala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav, 2014(3) Criminal Court Cases 308 (S.C.) : 2014(4) CJ (Cri) (SC) 1099 and Uday Mohan Lal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001(2) Apex Court Journal 216 (S.C.) : 2001(5) SCC 485.

7. Per contra, learned public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that application filed by petitioner-accused was premature and after extension of time the Cr.P.C., therefore, this revision petition may be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submission made at the Bar.

9. Before considering the arguments advanced at Bar, I deem it just and proper to go through the relevant provisions.

10. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"