IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.03.2026 Date of uploading: 13.03.2026 Kamal Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh & Mr. Abhishek Kharb, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. The substantive prayer made in the instant petition reads thus:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the record of the case be perused after and perusal of the same impugned order dated 9.1.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad may kindly be set aside/quashed. Revision petition be allowed and the application under section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. for grant of default bail may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner ought to have been extended the concession of default bail as the Chemical Examiner Report was not filed alongwith the challan. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.10.2022, whereinafter he was extended the concession of interim regular bail by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2023 and the said order is enuring till date. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the contraband involved into the FIR in question is

50.66 grams of heroin, which is non-commercial in nature. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further iterated that there is no allegation of misusing the concession of interim regular bail earlier afforded to him at his instance. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and multiple FIRs have been registered against him. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and, hence the petition is ought to be declined. She seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.03.2026, which is taken on record.

4. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the question of law; as to whether an accused ought to be granted the concession of default bail in a NDPS case, where the Chemical Examiner Report/FSL is not filed alongwith the challan, is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.15293-2023 titled Hanif Ansari vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi). Relevant part of the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in the said case reads thus:

“The point to be addressed in this matter is as to whether non-

furnishing of the FSL report with the chargesheet, within the prescribed time, would entitle an accused to default bail on the ground that it would be an incomplete chargesheet without such a report. The High Court in the impugned judgment rejected the bail plea of the petitioner, holding, inter- alia:-

“9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Arbaz v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2542, had taken a view that the accused would not be entitled to statutory bail merely because the FSL Report was not part of the chargesheet. An appeal against the said judgment is pending before the Supreme Court.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 348, has held that it is not mandatory to file the FSL Report along with the chargesheet. The relevant observations are set out below: “19. We thus hold that under Section 173(2) of the Code there is no mandate that a police report must enclose the document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert. In the present cases, as cognizance of the offences taken by the Magistrate was proper and valid, no order releasing the petitioners on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code was required to be passed.”

11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Suleman v. The State (