RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 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 application filed by the prosecution for extension of time for filing the status report under Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act in a case bearing FIR No.40, dated 14.05.2025, under Sections 21(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Verka, District Amritsar was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in case bearing FIR No.40, dated 14.05.2025, under Sections 21(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Verka Amritsar, District Amritsar and was arrested on the same day, i.e. 14.05.2025. He has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the statutory period for filing the challan was expired on 10.11.2025. 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 had filed an application seeking extension of time for presentation of the challan on the 180th day itself, i.e. on 10.11.2025 and the learned trial Court had illegally allowed the application vide impugned order dated 19.11.2025 with extension of one month time. He has further submitted that the pendency of FSL report is not a compelling ground. He has further submitted that after the completion of 180 days, the petitioner moved an application on the very next day, i.e. 11.11.2025 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, at this stage, neither any challan was filed nor the application filed by the prosecution was allowed and the learned trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for default bail vide order dated 19.11.2025. 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 Kumas Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another’, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 942; ‘Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others’, (1994) 4 SCC 602 and by this Hon’ble Court in ‘Ranjit Singh @ Rana vs. State of Haryana’, CRR No.2087 of 2014, decided on 08.02.2017, etc. He has thus submitted that the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 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. Reply dated 30.03.2026 by way of an affidavit of Anubhav Jain, IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Amritsar East, Commissionerate, Amritsar on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the State, however, has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that in the absence of the Chemical Examiner report, it is not possible to present the challan in the Court. He has submitted that the contraband weighing 500 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner and he was arrested on the spot on 14.05.2025. He has further