The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a chargesheet is filed, the accused cannot claim default bail, but may apply for regular bail based on the absence of conclusive proof of the alleged substance.

JUDGMENT

1. Since a common question of law is involved, both the cases have been clubbed and taken up together for disposal.

2. CRLMC No.2033 of 2022: The petitioner herein was arrested in connection with an incident dated 10th September, 2021 towards recovery and seizure of 264 grams of contraband substance suspected to be Brown sugar which corresponds to Special Case No.235 of 2021 pending in the file of learned Special Judge, Balasore and was remanded to judicial custody and later chargesheeted, whereupon, the court took cognizance of an offence under the NDPS Act. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the preliminary chargesheet though filed but is incomplete, since it is not accompanied with a Chemical Examination Report and hence, he entitled to default bail. However, the learned Special Judge, Balasore rejected the plea of the petitioner by impugned order dated 15th July, 2021.

3. CRLMC No.2428 of 2022: In the instant case, the petitioner was alleged to be involved in possession of 325 grams of Brown sugar which was recovered from him and for that, he was forwarded in connection with Special Case No.34 of 2022 pending before the court of learned Special Judge, Balasore. Like the other case, the petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but the same was rejected.

4. The petitioners pleaded for release on a common ground that though the chargesheets have been submitted but without Chemical Examination Reports, hence, are incomplete and therefore, both are entitled to default bail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when there were no complete chargesheets, on expiry of the stipulated period of detention, the petitioners should have been granted bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. however the learned Special Judge, Balasore declined it on the ground that cognizance has already been taken of the offence, a decision which is legally not tenable and therefore, deserve to be interfered with. While contending so, Mr. Samantaray, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited the following decisions, such as, Ravinder Vrs. State of Haryana: MANU/PH/3829/2014; Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and Others Vrs. State of Maharastra: MANU/MH/0356/2002; Tarlok and Others Vrs. State of Haryana: MANU/PH/0275/2019; and Achpal @ Ramswaroop and Others Vrs. State of Rajasthan: MANU/SC/1035/2018. The contention of Mr. Samantaray is made to suggest that the investigation cannot be said to be complete as the preliminary chargesheets were filed though within the stipulated period but not in confirmity with Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to default bail which is inevitable being an indefeasible right statutorily mandated.

6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned ASC on the other hand submits that the learned Special Judge, Balasore rightly declined to release the petitioners for having already taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the materials submitted along with the preliminary chargesheets and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be found fault with and hence, not to be disturbed.

7. It is not denied by the State that at the time of taking cognizance of the offence, there was any Chemical Examination Reports submitted with the preliminary chargesheets. Admittedly, the preliminary chargesheets were filed, whereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners, who thereafter moved the learned court below for release in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but were denied. So the seminal question is, whether, in such a situation, the preliminary chargesheets are to be held as incomplete so as to enable the petitioners to claim default bail? Mr. Samantaray would contend that in view of the decisions (supra), the chargesheets could not be treated as complete despite being filed within the statutory period and therefore, the petitioners were bound to be released on bail on its expiry.

8. Let us browse the