The main legal point established is that the inclusion of the Chemical Examiner's report in the challan is essential, and the absence of such report within the stipulated time period entitles the accused to default bail.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Puri, J. - The present petition has been directed against the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 36-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'), read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the FIR has been registered in pursuance of the recovery of 1300 tablets of Alprozolam and 1000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride from the possession of the petitioner.

3. The FIR has been registered on 08.03.2020 and it has been stated that on the same day, the petitioner was arrested and produced for the first time in the Court for remand. The challan has been presented on 04.09.2020. However, the challan was not accompanied with the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. It has also been pointed out that no permission of the learned Special Court was sought for extension of time in investigation of the case. Accordingly, on completion of 180 days, the petitioner had instituted the aforesaid bail application seeking concession of bail. The bail application has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 08.09.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and another versus State of Punjab, Criminal Revision No.4659 of 2015, decided on 30.11.2018, wherein it has been held that a challan presented without the report of the Chemical Examiner has to be termed as incomplete challan which deprived the Magistrate of relevant material to take cognizance. The submission of incomplete challan within the requisite period of 180 days would essentially result in default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court about the status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court. It has been further pointed out that in a subsequent Single Bench decision of this Court in Akash Kumar @ Sunny versus State of Haryana, Criminal Revision No.1731 of 2019, decided on 16.10.2019, the Division Bench judgment in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta's case (supra), has been declared to be per incuriam. The said judgment was also followed in another Single Bench judgment of this Court in Shankar versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-44412 of 2019, decided on 20.12.2019.

5. Thereafter, the same controversy also cropped up in a Single Bench decision in Julfkar versus State of Haryana, Criminal Revision No.1125 of 2020, decided on 16.09.2020 and the matter has been sought to be referred to a Division Bench for consideration and the accused was ordered to be released on bail.

6. On the contrary, it has been pointed out by the learned State counsel that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has been subsequently submitted in the Court on 20.10.2020 and the contents of the contraband can be verified from the label.

7. In Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and another's case (supra), in a bunch of seven cases, the Division Bench of this Court was called upon to answer the question set herein-below:-

"Whether the presentation of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., by the police without the report of Chemical Examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory amounts to incomplete challan and in the absence of any extension of time under Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the accused be entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?"

8. While making aforesaid reference, Single Bench had framed two questions in the order dated 28.01.2016, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

"1. Whether the presentation of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., by the police without the report of chemical examiner/FSL amounts to incomplete challan and in the absence of any extension of time under Section 36-A (4) of the NDPS Act, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.?

2. If th