IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.8 of 2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Gurdita Singh and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present: Mr. Ranbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate and Ms. Sangeeta Devi, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 187(3) BNSS (earlier Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.) for the grant of default bail was declined and the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 whereby the application filed by the prosecution for extension of time for filing the challan under Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act in a case bearing FIR No.164, dated 07.06.2025, under Sections 21(c), 25, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amitsar was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in case bearing FIR No.164, dated 07.06.2025, under Sections 21(c), 25, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amitsar and was arrested on 07.06.2025. He has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the statutory period for filing the challan was expired on 04.12.2025. He has submitted that since then, he is in custody for a period of more than 180 days, but the challan was not presented within this period, which gave him indefeasible right of being released on default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS (earlier Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.). He has submitted that the Investigating Agency on 02.12.2025 moved an application seeking extension of time for presentation of challan and the learned trial Court had illegally allowed the application vide order dated 06.12.2025 with extension of one month time. He has further submitted that after the completion of 180 days, the petitioner moved an application praying for the grant of default bail under Section 187(3) Cr.P.C. (earlier Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.) before the learned trial Court, however the learned trial Court, without issuing any notice to the petitioner in the application for extension of time filed by the Investigating Agency to submit the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for default bail vide order dated 06.12.2025. He has submitted that the Investigating Agency has not given any specific ground as to why the detention of the petitioner was required beyond the period of 180 days. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Sanjay Kuma Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Nrcotic Control Bureau and another’, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 942. He has thus submitted that the order dated 06.12.2025 whereby the application for extension of time for filing the challan was allowed as well as the application of the petitioner for default bail was dismissed passed by the Courts below has been passed without appreciating the real facts and as such the same are liable to be set aside.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On asking of the Court, Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She, however, has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that in the absence of the chemical report, it is not possible to present the challan in the Court. She has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2025 and his custody of 180 days was going to expire on 04.12.2025 and the application for extension of time for filing the challan was moved on 02.12.2025, which is well before the expiry of the same and the learned trial Court had rightly allowed the same vide order dated 06.12.2025. She has submitted that as the challan was not filed, the petitioner moved an application for de