RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.12.2025, whereby application filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail was dismissed by learned trial Court, in view of order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, 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.106, dated 04.06.2025, under Sections 21, 21(c), 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar, was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in case bearing FIR No.106, dated 04.06.2025, under Sections 21, 21(c), 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar and was arrested on 04.06.2025. He has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the statutory period for filing the challan expired on 30.11.2025. 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 her 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 15.11.2025 moved an application seeking extension of time for presentation of challan and the learned trial Court had illegally allowed the application vide order dated 27.11.2025 with extension of two months time. He has submitted that the pendency of FSL report is not a compelling ground to extend the custody of the petitioner beyond the period of 180 days. 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, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for default bail vide order dated 12.12.2025. He submits 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 this Hon’ble Court in ‘Mahender Vs. State of Haryana, CRR-662-2023’; ‘Punma Ram Vs. State of Haryana, CRR-1427-2023’; ‘Sahid Vs. State of Haryana, CRR-2697-2023 and CRR-2696-2023’; ‘Sanjay Kuma Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia vs. Intelligence Officer, Nrcotic Control Bureau and another’; ‘Gulam Navi @ Gami Vs. State of Haryana, CRR-1528-2023 and CRM-M-27369-2023’ and ‘Navneet Vs. State of Haryana, CRR-1759-2023’. He has thus, submitted that order dated 27.11.2025 whereby the application for extension of time for filing the challan was allowed as well as order dated 12.12.2025, vide which the application of the petitioner for default bail was dismissed, passed by the trial Court have 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, Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, D.A.G., Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He, however, has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that in the absence of the chemical report, it is not possible for investigating agencies to present the challan in the Court. He has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2025 and her custody of 180 days was going to expire on 30.11.2025 and the application for extension of time for filing the challan was moved on 15.11.2025, which is well before the expiry of the same and the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar had rightly allowed the same vide order dated 27.11.2025. He has submitted that the petitioner moved an application for default bail on 12.12.2025 which was beyond statutory period of 180 days and after application for extension of time file