Daya Chaudhary, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.257 dated 18.10.2014 registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2014 and since then he is in custody. The challan has not been presented till date and the period of 180 days has expired on 16.04.2015. Learned counsel further submits that an application was moved by the prosecution on 13.04.2015 for extension of period of 60 days for presentation of challan, which was allowed by the trial Court on the same day and period of 40 days was granted to the prosecution for presentation of challan. Learned counsel also submits that even after the expiry of aforesaid period of 40 days, the challan was not presented and the total period of 220 days expired on 25.05.2015. Thereafter, one more application was moved by the prosecution for grant of another 60 days time to present the challan, which was allowed and 60 days more time was granted to the prosecution. But even after expiry of period of 280 days (180+40+60), the prosecution did not present the challan. Subsequently, again for the third time, an application was moved for grant of extension of time and that application is still pending. The petitioner has also moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, but the same was rejected by the trial Court on 23.06.2015 on the ground that time for presentation of challan has already been extended vide order dated 25.05.2015. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution has already availed the benefit under Section 36A (4) on two occasions and still the challan has not been presented before trial Court. The petitioner cannot be kept in custody without filing of the challan for an indefinite period as an indefeasible right has accrued to the petitioner in view of provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2013) 3 SCC 77 as well as judgments of this Court in Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, Criminal Misc. No. M-16899 of 2014 decided on 21.07.2014 and Rajinder Pal @ Lovely vs. State of Punjab, 2015(2) Criminal Court Cases 487 (P&H) in support of his contentions.

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the extension was granted on the application moved by the prosecution and there was no reason to grant bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The application was moved before expiry of period of 180 days and the period was extended twice for presentation of challan. Learned State counsel also submits that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain' case (supra) is not applicable in the present case as it was not a case under NDPS Act.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.

The issue in the present case is whether the accused is entitled for bail in view of provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. when the period has already been extended by the trial Court on the application moved by the prosecution.

For facilitation, Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: -

"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

(1) *** *** ***(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and