JUDGMENT :

(Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.)

The petitioners are impugning order dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that an application was moved by the petitioners before the learned Special Court for extending the concession of default bail under Section 167 (2) on 11.10.2021, which however, was withdrawn on account of a statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor that report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. challan, already stood presented before the Duty Magistrate on 09.10.2021. However, on receipt of a copy of the said report, the petitioners discovered that an incomplete challan had been presented, as even after expiry of 180 days, requisite sanction under Section 39 of the ARMS ACT had not been obtained. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that it is a settled principle of law that in a case where a person is accused of multiple offences, the investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct piece meal investigation so as to circumvent the right of an accused by initially presenting challan qua some offences and subsequently filing a supplementary chargesheet qua the remaining offences in order to evade the time period stipulated for completion of investigation under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.

3. He further submits that in the instant case, even though the investigation qua offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was complete, the investigation with respect to an offence under Section 25 of the ARMS ACT would be deemed to be incomplete, for want of the mandatory sanction for prosecution of the accused. Learned counsel asserts that since the stipulated period of 60 days, prescribed for completion of investigation of offences punishable upto ten years under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., had expired and as already submitted, the investigation was incomplete, the indefeasible right of the accused had accrued for grant of default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon ' Chitra Ramakrishna etc. vs. CBI ' 2022 SCC Online Del 3124 and ' Fakhrey Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ' 2021 Online SC 532.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, vehemently contends that when the application for grant of default bail was moved by the petitioners on 13.12.2021, trial had already commenced as it was a matter of record that the charges stood framed much prior thereto. Therefore, once the stage of investigation was over, the petitioners would have no right to be released on default bail.

5. He has further submitted that investigation could not be said to be incomplete merely because the requisite sanction for prosecution under the ARMS ACT had not been obtained. The investigation qua the substantive offence under the NDPS Act stood completed within the stipulated time period, therefore, there was no question of the prosecution trying to evade the time limit for completion of investigation under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel in support, relied on ' Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. State of Maharashtra ', 2013 Crl. L.J. 1625.

6. While rebutting the submissions made by the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had availed of their right to default bail prior to the framing of charges by moving an appropriate application in the said regard. While referring to the CIS report of the System Off