Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant bail applications preferred by the petitioners before this Court involve the common question of law and are thus, being decided by the common order.

2. The brief controversy, which has been raised before this Court in these bail applications is as to whether, on account of non-filing of the FSL report of the seized contraband alongwith the charge-sheet, the accused gets right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

3. It is not in dispute that in all these cases the Police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons within the period prescribed in Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act and they are facing trial. The accused thereafter during the pendency of the trial, raised an issue before the trial Court that since the FSL report was not filed alongwith the original charge-sheet, it would have the effect that the complete charge-sheet was not filed by the Police and thereby, the accused gets the right to be released on compulsive bail or default bail as per Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The applications seeking default bail on this ground have been rejected by the concerned trial court and hence, these bail applications.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused in these cases have raised the contention that unless the Police files the Chemical Examiner's report or the FSL report regarding the seized contraband alongwith the charge-sheet, such a charge-sheet cannot be considered to be a complete charge-sheet and thereby, no sooner the period of 180 days or 90 days as the case may be, prescribed in Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act is over and the FSL report is not filed on record, the accused would become entitled to be released on bail as of right on count of default of the prosecution to file the complete charge-sheet. In support of their contention, the learned counsel have placed reliance on the order dated 29.3.2013 passed by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Nath vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 1755/2013 and prayed that the petitioners in these cases are also entitled to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutors appearing on behalf of the respondent State have vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutors urged that the charge-sheets have been filed in all these cases within the stipulated time and thus, the right to compulsive bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. does not survive subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet. Learned Public Prosecutors submit that the right of the prosecution to file subsequent documents is available under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and would not entitle the accused to contest that the charge-sheet, which was filed earlier, was not a complete charge-sheet so as entitle them to be released on bail. It is argued that the controversy regarding the status of the charge-sheet unaccompanied with the FSL report was considered and set to rest by Hon'ble Single Benches of this Court in the cases of Himmat Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 Cr.L.J. 2967 and Atma Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 825 = RLW 1995(2) Raj. 572 as well as by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Full Bench decision rendered in the case of State of Haryana vs. Mehal Singh & Anr. reported in 1978 Cr.L.J. 1810. They contend that it has been laid down in these cases that non-filing of the FSL report or the chemical examiner's report alongwith the charge-sheet does not have the effect of the charge-sheet being incomplete. Thus, the accused would not be entitled to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutors, therefore, prayed that the bail applications filed by the petitioners be dismissed.

6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the orders impugned as well as the order passed by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document