VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J . (Oral)

1. The present petition has been instituted assailing the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner’s application seeking statutory/default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, 2023 came to be dismissed on the ground that the prosecution had already secured extension of the statutory periodfor presentation of the challan vide order dated 04.08.2026.

2. As per the prosecution case unfolded in the FIR, a secret informer furnished information that the petitioner was engaged in the sale of heroin and was proceeding to deliver the contraband to another person. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted and the petitioner was allegedly apprehended, from whose possession 1 kilogram 523 grams of heroin was recovered. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery, thepresent FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2026 and the statutory period of 180 days expired on 20.07.2026 without presentation of the challan. Although the prosecution moved applications under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time, the petitioner was not afforded prior notice and the orders dated 20.07.2026 and 04.08.2026 were passed without his effective representation. It is contended that the application for extension was subsequently allowed beyond the statutory period without compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 36-A(4), and consequently, the petitioner acquired an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS. The impugned order dated 07.08.2026, declining such relief merely on the strength of the subsequent extension, is therefore assailed aslegally unsustainable.

4. A short reply by way of affidavit of Yadwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Attari, Amritsar (Rural),has been filed on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab.

4.1. Learned State counsel appearing for the State of Punjab vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that no ground for interference is made out. It is contended that the impugned order is neither illegal nor perverse nor suffers from any material infirmity and has been passed by the Trial Court after due consideration of the relevant factualmatrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present petitionhas accordingly been prayed for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and, with their able assistance, have meticulously scrutinised the record and the material placed on file. The principal issue requiring determination is whether the extension of the statutory period granted to the prosecution under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of notice and hearing, could operate to defeat the petitioner’s statutory entitlement to default bail. The record indicates that the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to oppose the request for extension and that the extension orders were passed without his meaningful participation. The safeguard embodied in Section 36-A(4) is not a mere procedural formality, but a substantive statutory protection before the period of detention beyond the prescribed period can lawfully be continued. In Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI , 1994(5) SCC 410, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the nature of the indefeasible right arising upon expiry of the prescribed period, subject toits being duly availed of.

5.1. In the present case, once the statutory period of 180 days stood exhausted and the petitioner invoked his right to default bail, extension granted without compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards could not efface the right so accrued. The impugned order, having proceeded on the premise that the prosecution had already secured a valid extension, without examining whether the statutory prerequisites for