The FSL report is an essential part of the investigation under the NDPS Act, and an incomplete challan without the FSL report entitles the accused to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI. J.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 02.04.2021 wherein the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. As per the FIR, on 17.07.2020, a secret information was received that Tajudin @ Rohtash (petitioner), Ram Rattan @ Kala and Arvind Raut are carrying charas in a vehicle, which was a Maruti Swift car and thereafter, the police party after making a report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act reached the spot and the vehicle was stopped. In the vehicle, the driver disclosed his name as Tajudin @ Rohtash, who is the present petitioner and the person who was sitting next to him disclosed his name as Ram Rattan @ Kala and the third person disclosed his name as Arvind Raut. Thereafter, the procedure is stated to be followed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. There was alleged recovery from a bag in the vehicle which contained 20 packets of charas and its total weight was found to be 10 Kg. 200 grams.

3. The subject matter of the present Revision Petition pertains to the prayer for grant of default bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2020 and after the investigation of the case, report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was presented on 05.10.2020. Although the report was presented within a period of 180 days, but it was not accompanied with the FSL report. The FSL report was ultimately filed in the Court on 02.04.2021, which was beyond the period of 180 days. Nothing has been brought on record or to the notice of this Court with regard to the filing of any application for extension of time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the presentation of report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was in the nature of incomplete challan as the FSL report was filed after the expiry of 180 days, he may be granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that the impugned order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak is not only erroneous but it is also contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No.4659 of 2015. He further submitted that once a question of law pertaining to the grant of default bail under the NDPS Act has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak ought to not have dismissed the bail application of the petitioner once the factual position was clear that an incomplete challan was presented before the learned trial Court and it was only after the expiry of 180 days that the FSL report was filed. He submitted that the right of the petitioner was a statutory right and, therefore, even if the FSL report has been filed after the expiry of 180 days, the right still vests in the petitioner by the operation of law which has been provided by the Statute. He further submitted that after the passing of the aforesaid judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta's case (Supra), this issue also came up before learned Single Judges of this Court in many other cases and in one of those cases, i.e. Julfkar Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Revision No. 1125 of 2020 the matter has also been referred again to the larger Bench. He submitted that, however, be that as it may, as of today, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh@ Jeeta's case (Supra) is in operation and, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of default bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that another ground on the basis of which his application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. was declined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak was that since the recovery in