Accused facing charges punishable up to 10 years are entitled to default bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days, underscoring the necessity of timely investigations.

JUDGMENT :

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.

CRM-35175-2025

This is an application filed by the applicant-petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for placing on record the amended grounds of revision, mentioning therein that petitioners became entitled to the concession of default bail under Section 187 (3)(1) of ( Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.) on completion of 60 days, on account of investigating agencies having failed to file the challan within the said period. However, in the original grounds of revision, inadvertently, instead of ‘60’ days, the word ‘90’ days was mentioned in para 3, 4 and 5. The mistake being unintentional and bonafide, applicants pray for granting them the permission to correct the same.

Contents of the application perused. In view of the reasons mentioned therein, the present application is allowed.

Amended grounds of revision taken on record.

Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.

Main Case

1. By virtue of the present petition, petitioners who are accused in case bearing FIR No.93 dated 29.04.2025, registered against them under Section 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur, have assailed order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Special Court, Hoshiarpur, vide which an application filed by them (petitioners) for grant of ‘default bail’ under Section 187 (2) BNSS (167(2) Cr.P.C.), was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record, be noticed hereinbelow:-

As per prosecution, on 29.04.2025, both the petitioners were caught keeping in their illegal possession, 16 and 14 grams of contraband, respectively. After complying with the statutory formalities at the site, they were taken in custody on the same day i.e. 29.04.2025. The contraband was also taken into possession and aforesaid FIR was lodged.

Admittedly, an application for grant of default bail was filed by petitioners, on 02.07.2025 at 10.00 a.m., whereas challan was presented later at about 11:18 a.m. and that too without the report of FSL. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissed the said application.

Para 8 and 9 of the impugned order read as under:-

“8. From the perusal of the record, there is no doubt that the bail application was received at 10 AM today and the challan was presented at 11:18 AM without FSL report. There is no doubt that incomplete challan has been presented as FSL report is not there. In this regard the authorities Omkar (supra) and Kayum (supra) are stated to be applicable. However, in both these cases the statutory period of 180 days was required in terms of Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act. It is not so in the case in hand in which 65 days has expired. Whether contraband so recovered falls within commercial quantity or not, the same depends upon the FSL report and the period of 180 days has been prescribed under Section 36A (4) of NDPS Act. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to presume that the intoxicant so recovered was heroin and it was not a commercial quantity.

9. So far as the authority Mohammad Sajjid (supra) by Hon'ble Kerala High Court is concerned, the same is also distinguishable on the ground that in the said case it was clear that the accused were found to have possession of MDMA.

However, in the case in hand, it is yet to be determined as to which psychotropic substance was recovered from the accused and as to whether it falls within commercial or intermediate quantity. As such, the application filed by the applicants for grant of default bail is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Police record be returned and bail application file be attached with the main challan.”

As is apparent, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, in terms of impugn