The absence of a chemical examination report in a chargesheet does not invalidate it, and does not automatically entitle the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 6^th November, 2025 passed in connection with Special G.R. Case No.185 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkanagiri arising out of Mathili P.S. Case No.257 of 2025, whereby, an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 187(2) BNSS demanding default bail by them was rejected on the grounds inter alia that such decision is not in accordance with law and hence, liable to be interfered with and set act naught.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6^th December, 2024 at the about 2.00 PM, the SI of Police along with other staff were performing checking duty at Govindpalli check post and at that time, found a four-wheeler bearing Registration No.CG-15-CV-3171 arriving towards them in high speed and hence, was stopped and in course of inspection of the same, three polythene bags were inside whereas one packet was kept in its dickey emitting smell of Ganja and as a result, 107 Kg 300 Grams of Ganja was recovered and ultimately, seized and thereafter, report was lodged as per Annexure-1 leading to Mathili P.S. Case No.257 dated 6^th December, 2024 being registered.

3. In connection with the alleged incident and the case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, the petitioners were arrested and produced before the learned court below and the application moved by them thereafter for bail was rejected. It is pleaded on record that the petitioners moved BLAPL Nos.1568 and 1596 of 2025 before this Court and the same were also rejected and in the meantime, with the closure of investigation, the chargesheet was filed under the said offence before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri in Special G.R. Case No.185 of 2024 but without enclosing the chemical examination report, as a result of which, by order dated 1^st July, 2025, the court below directed the IO to submit the same for the purpose of hearing on the point of charge. Since, the chemical examination report was not filed along with the chargesheet despite the Court’s order dated 1 ^st July, 2025, the petitioners moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 187(2) BNSS seeking default bail pleading that they are entitled to the same but it was rejected vide Annexure-4, which is presently under challenge.

4. Heard Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

5. According to Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners, denial of default bail by the learned court below to the petitioners is contrary to law and also facts on record and against the settled judicial precedents and therefore, deserves to be set aside. The further submission is that the learned court below miserably failed to appreciate the settled legal position laid down by the Apex Court to the effect that filing of the chargesheet without annexing a chemical examination report to it in an NDPS case is an incomplete one and as a result, the petitioners acquired an indefeasible right to the statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 187(2) BNSS. The contention is that the impugned order at Annexure-4 suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness and non-application of mind, inasmuch as, the learned court below ignored the fact that despite repeated directions, the IO failed to produce the chemical examination report and therefore, such a right to default bail had been crystalized. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel would further contend that non-filing of the chemical examination report with the chargesheet