***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Tam Taran, vide which 60 days additional time was granted for filing of final report (challan). Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the said court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 187 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'), for the grant of default bail.

2. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 0194 dated 22.08.2026. The allegation against him is of he having been found to be in possession of 503 grams of heroin on 22.08.2026.

3. For, the time period of 180 days was set to expire, the SHO Police Station Khalra, filed an application dated 13.02.2026, duly forwarded by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (Annexure P-2) seeking extension of time for submission of the challan. It was stated in the application that since the FSL report had not been received despite reminders, the challan could not be filed within the period of 180 days and accordingly extension in the same was prayed for. Vide order dated 17.02.2026, the said application was allowed and further vide order dated 26.02.2026, the application moved by the petitioner for release on default bail was dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned orders are not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, 2009 (17 SCC 631 and judgments of Coordinate Benches in Hoshiar Singh @ Gora Vs. State of Punjab (CRR-2537-2018 decided on 17.11.2018); Surender Vs. State of Haryana (CRR-1867-2023 decided on 31.01.2025); Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2024(2) Law Herald 1402; Navneet Vs. State of Haryana (CRR-1759-2023 decided 17.09.2024) and Chander Prakash Vs. State of Haryana, 2023(3) RCR (Criminal) 903. He submits that under the circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be released on default bail.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Kedia (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a similar issue wherein the prayer of the petitioner therein for the grant of default bail had been rejected. The Apex Court examined the provisions of Section 36A of the NDPS Act, and held that the application therein had been filed only by the Investigating Officer without there being any application of mind on the part of the public prosecutor. It was also held that the application did not indicate the progress of the investigation nor did it indicate the compelling reasons which required an extension of custody beyond 180 days. It was further observed that the application was allowed without notice to the accused. Under these circumstances, the said order was set aside and the appellant therein was directed to be released on bail.

9. Following the said judgment, a similar view has been taken by a number of coordinate benches of this court in Hoshiar Singh @ Gora (supra), Surender Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Navneet Vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Chander Prakash Vs. State of Haryana (supra).

10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the application moved for extension of the time period, after referring to the contents of the FIR and a brief reference to the facts and sending of the sample to FSL, simply sought extension of time on the ground that the report of FSL had not been received. No compelling reasons for seeking extension of time were given. Here too, the application does not reflect any application of mind on the part of the public prosecutor and it was simply forwarded by the public prosecutor in a routine manner. The impugned order dated 17.02.2026 shows that only the Assistant Public Prosecutor was present and notice was not issued to the accused. The order also shows non-application of mind. For the facility of reference, the said order is reproduced:

"Present:  APP for the State along with SHO of P.S. Khalra. Today an application has been filed for extension of time for presentation of challan in FIR no. 194 dated 22.08.2025 and that the sample sent to the office of RTFS has not been received back and therefore, the challan in the present case cannot be presented within the stipulated time of 180 days which are expiring on 18.02.2026. Further a perusal of the report shows that the Id. Court had also sent reminders to RTFSL, Amritsar on dated 06.02.2026 for expeditious sending of the sample report. But inspite of that sample has not been received yet As per the application filed, the request for extension of time is allowed for a further period of 60 days from the time, the same was expiring. These papers be annexed with the challan papers.

11. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail was also summarily dismissed without application of mind.

12. If one goes through the facts of the present case and the law on the subject, there remains no doubt in the mind of this court that the application for extension of time was wrongly allowed and the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of default bail was wrongly rejected.

13. That being so, the present revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on default bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition allowed.

********