IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.02.2026 Hardeep Singh ….Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-7721-2026 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned the application, the same is allowed.

MAIN CASE

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Special Court, Gurdaspur whereby the application filed by the petitioner for default bail under Section 187(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in FIR No.29, dated 07.05.2025, registered under Sections 22, 25, 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Special Operation Cell, District Amritsar, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and were arrested on 07.05.2025 with the alleged contraband and produced before Illaqa Magistrate on 08.05.2025 and have been in custody since then. He submits that it is settled law that in case under NDPS Act, prosecution has to present challan within 180 days after registration of FIR. Since, the prosecution failed to file challan within the stipulated time, an indefeasible right accrued in favour of the petitioner and they were entitled for default bail. He further submits that an application for default bail was filed before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed on the ground that the prosecution has already got extension of one month time to file the challan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law if the prosecution is unable to file challan within a stipulated time, they have to get the permission of the Court, however, a notice is also to be given to the accused and he should be heard before any such extension is granted. He contends that in the present case the prosecution made an application for extension of time on 30.10.2025 which was allowed on 31.10.2025 whereas, the period of 180 days was to expire on 04.11.2025. He argues that though the application was made by prosecution before the expiry of 180 days, however, no notice was served to the accused and the principles of law have been violated. It is further submitted that the co-accused have been granted default bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026. Thus, he prays that the impugned order suffers from grave illegality and be set aside and the petitioner be granted the concession of default bail.

4. Opposing the prayer for bail, learned counsel for the State submits that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He submits that the prosecution had filed the application seeing extension of time to file the challan before the expiry of 180 days, which was allowed by the learned trial Court. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court and the present petition lacks merit.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the prosecution had filed an application seeking extension of time to file the challan on 30.10.2025 which was allowed on 31.10.2025, whereas the period of 180 days expired on 04.11.2025. It is established law that right to default bail arises only when the statutory period for filing the challan has expired and no valid extension has been granted. As far as the requirement of giving notice to the accused is concerned the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I. Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410; wherein while examining a similar question under the pari materia provision of TADA Act

1987 it was observed as under:-

"48. We have no doubt that the common stance before