CRR-783 of 2026(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 256 NITISH @ NITESH KANDA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT Present: RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1. against the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by Learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of CrPC (now Section 187 BNSS) seeking grant of default bail in FIR No.29, dated 07.05.2025, registered under Sections 22, 25, 2 NDPS Act at Poli District Amritsar has been dismissed. 2. petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025. Thereafter, he remained continuously incarcerated without the filing of the challan 783 of 2026(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR- Date of Decision: 04.05.2026 NITISH @ NITESH KANDA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG Punjab. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) The present Criminal Revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by Learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of CrPC (now Section 187 BNSS) seeking grant of default bail in FIR No.29, dated 07.05.2025, registered under Sections 22, 25, 2 NDPS Act at Police Station State District Amritsar has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025. Thereafter, he remained nuously incarcerated without the filing of the challan IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -783 of 2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 04.05.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Yaseen Sethi, Advocate Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG Punjab. The present Criminal Revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of CrPC (now Section 187 BNSS) seeking grant of default bail in FIR No.29, dated 07.05.2025, registered under Sections 22, 25, 29 of ce Station State Special Operation Cell, District Amritsar has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025. Thereafter, he remained nuously incarcerated without the filing of the challan The present Criminal Revision petition is directed the Learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of CrPC (now Section 187 BNSS) seeking grant of default bail in FIR No.29, 9 of Special Operation Cell, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2025 and was remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025. Thereafter, he remained nuously incarcerated without the filing of the challan PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-783 of 2026(O&M) within the statutory period. It is submitted that 180 days from the date of first remand expired on 03.11.2025, and it is an admitted position that no challan was filed within the said period. He furth extension of time to file the challan, which was granted without issuing notice to the petitioner. The said order has been declared null and void by this Court, and the co has been granted default bail vid passed in CRR that the petitioner, acting with due diligence and being similarly situated to the co 16.02.2026 for grant of default bail; however, the sam dismissed by the learned trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on default bail. 3. already filed a status report in the matter and, while re upon the same, has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner of parity with the co accused, who have been granted default bail by this Court, is misconceived, as those petitioners had filed applications for default bail prior to the filing of the challan, i.e., before 24.11.2025. In contrast, the present petitioner admittedly filed his application for default bail only on 16.02.2026, i.e. much after the filing of challan. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that once the challan has been filed and 783 of 2026(O&M) -2- within the statutory period. It is submitted that 180 days from the date of first remand expired on 03.11.2025, and it is an admitted position that no challan was filed within the said period. He further submits that the prosecution had sought extension of time to file the challan, which was granted without issuing notice to the petitioner. The said order has been declared null and void by this Court, and the co has been granted default bail vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in CRR-3088 of 2025 by this Court. It is contended that the petitioner, acting with due diligence and being similarly situated to the co-accused, filed an application on 16.02.2026 for grant of default bail; however, the sam dismissed by the learned trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on default bail. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed a status report in the matter and, while re upon the same, has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner of parity with the co accused, who have been granted default bail by this Court, is misconceived, as those petitioners had filed applications for t bail prior to the filing of the challan, i.e., before 24.11.2025. In contrast, the present petitioner admittedly filed his application for default bail only on 16.02.2026, i.e. much after the filing of challan. It is further submitted that it is a d position of law that once the challan has been filed and within the statutory period. It is submitted that 180 days from the date of first remand expired on 03.11.2025, and it is an admitted position that no challan was filed within the said er submits that the prosecution had sought extension of time to file the challan, which was granted without issuing notice to the petitioner. The said order has been declared null and void by this Court, and the co-accused e order dated 05.02.2026 of 2025 by this Court. It is contended that the petitioner, acting with due diligence and being accused, filed an application on 16.02.2026 for grant of default bail; however, the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed a status report in the matter and, while relying upon the same, has opposed the present petition. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner of parity with the co- accused, who have been granted default bail by this Court, is misconceived, as those petitioners had filed applications for t bail prior to the filing of the challan, i.e., before 24.11.2025. In contrast, the present petitioner admittedly filed his application for default bail only on 16.02.2026, i.e. much after the filing of challan. It is further submitted that it is a d position of law that once the challan has been filed and within the statutory period. It is submitted that 180 days from the date of first remand expired on 03.11.2025, and it is an admitted position that no challan was filed within the said er submits that the prosecution had sought extension of time to file the challan, which was granted without issuing notice to the petitioner. The said order has accused e order dated 05.02.2026 of 2025 by this Court. It is contended that the petitioner, acting with due diligence and being accused, filed an application on e was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released On the other hand, learned State counsel has lying upon the same, has opposed the present petition. It is - accused, who have been granted default bail by this Court, is misconceived, as those petitioners had filed applications for t bail prior to the filing of the challan, i.e., before 24.11.2025. In contrast, the present petitioner admittedly filed his application for default bail only on 16.02.2026, i.e. much after the filing of challan. It is further submitted that it is a d position of law that once the challan has been filed and PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-783 of 2026(O&M) the right to default bail has not been exercised by the accused prior thereto, such right stands extinguished. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the order passed by the learned trial Court, and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. have perused t involved in the present petition pertains to the right of the petitioner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now 187 BNSS). It is not in dispute that though the challan was not filed did not avail of his right to seek default bail prior to the filing of the challan. Rather, the application for grant of default bail was admittedly filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 16.02 on 24.11.2025. 5. default bail is an indefeasible right, however, the same must be exercised before the filing of the challan. Once the challan is filed and the accused has not availed of such right, the same stands extinguished. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCC 410; wherein it was held that 167(2) Cr.P.C. ceases to be enforceable once the challan is filed. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: 783 of 2026(O&M) -3- the right to default bail has not been exercised by the accused prior thereto, such right stands extinguished. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in der passed by the learned trial Court, and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. The issue involved in the present petition pertains to the right of the petitioner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now 187 BNSS). It is not in dispute that though the challan was not filed within the statutory period, the petitioner did not avail of his right to seek default bail prior to the filing of the challan. Rather, the application for grant of default bail was admittedly filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 16.02.2026, i.e., much after the filing of the challan on 24.11.2025. It is a settled proposition of law that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right, however, the same must be exercised before the filing of the challan. Once the challan d and the accused has not availed of such right, the same stands extinguished. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State, 1994 (5) ; wherein it was held that 167(2) Cr.P.C. ceases to be enforceable once the challan is filed. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: the right to default bail has not been exercised by the accused prior thereto, such right stands extinguished. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in der passed by the learned trial Court, and the present I have heard learned counsel for the parties and he record with their able assistance. The issue involved in the present petition pertains to the right of the petitioner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now 187 BNSS). It is not in dispute that though the within the statutory period, the petitioner did not avail of his right to seek default bail prior to the filing of the challan. Rather, the application for grant of default bail was admittedly filed by the petitioner before the learned trial .2026, i.e., much after the filing of the challan It is a settled proposition of law that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right, however, the same must be exercised before the filing of the challan. Once the challan d and the accused has not availed of such right, the same stands extinguished. In this regard, reference may be Constitution Bench of the Sanjay Dutt v. State, 1994 (5) ; wherein it was held that the right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. ceases to be enforceable once the challan is filed. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: the right to default bail has not been exercised by the accused prior thereto, such right stands extinguished. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in der passed by the learned trial Court, and the present I have heard learned counsel for the parties and he record with their able assistance. The issue involved in the present petition pertains to the right of the petitioner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. (now 187 BNSS). It is not in dispute that though the within the statutory period, the petitioner did not avail of his right to seek default bail prior to the filing of the challan. Rather, the application for grant of default bail was admittedly filed by the petitioner before the learned trial .2026, i.e., much after the filing of the challan It is a settled proposition of law that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right, however, the same must be exercised before the filing of the challan. Once the challan d and the accused has not availed of such right, the same stands extinguished. In this regard, reference may be Constitution Bench of the Sanjay Dutt v. State, 1994 (5) the right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. ceases to be enforceable once the challan is PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-783 of 2026(O&M) “52. We have no doubt that the common stance before us of the nature of indefeasible right of the accused to be released on a correct reading of the principle indicated in that decision. in such a situation is enforceable only prior of the challan enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of. of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the me provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after the filing of the challan the challan has been filed is not governed by Section 167 Procedure. remained unenforced till the filing of the challan, then there is no question of its enforcement thereafter since it is extinguished the moment challan i Section apply Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal 2001 AIR (SC) 1910; 783 of 2026(O&M) -4- “52. We have no doubt that the common stance before us of the nature of indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail by virtue of Section on a correct reading of the principle indicated in that decision. The indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of. Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after the filing of the challan. The custody of the accused after the challan has been filed is not governed by Section 167but different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If that right had accrued to the accused but it remained unenforced till the filing of the challan, then there is no question of its enforcement thereafter since it is extinguished the moment challan i Section 167 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ceases to apply. ………………….” ………… emphasis supplied Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 AIR (SC) 1910; and more recently in “52. We have no doubt that the common stance before us of the nature of indefeasible right of the accused to be on bail by virtue of Section 20(4)(bb) is based on a correct reading of the principle indicated in that The indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior to the filing and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only rits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after . The custody of the accused after the challan has been filed is not governed by Section ifferent provisions of the Code of Criminal If that right had accrued to the accused but it remained unenforced till the filing of the challan, then there is no question of its enforcement thereafter since it is extinguished the moment challan is filed because Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ceases to ………… emphasis supplied Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, and more recently in M. Ravindran v. “52. We have no doubt that the common stance before us of the nature of indefeasible right of the accused to be (4)(bb) is based on a correct reading of the principle indicated in that The indefeasible right accruing to the accused to the filing and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only rits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after . The custody of the accused after the challan has been filed is not governed by Section ifferent provisions of the Code of Criminal If that right had accrued to the accused but it remained unenforced till the filing of the challan, then there is no question of its enforcement thereafter since it s filed because Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ceases to ………… emphasis supplied Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, M. Ravindran v. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRR-783 of 2026(O&M) Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2021 (2) SCC 485 6. with the co had exercised their right to default bail prior to the filing of the challan, whereas the petitioner failed to do so within the stipulated time. 7. opinion that the learned application filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 04.05.2026 Puneet… 783 of 2026(O&M) -5- Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2021 (2) SCC 485. The contention of the petitioner regarding parity with the co-accused is also without merit, as the co had exercised their right to default bail prior to the filing of the challan, whereas the petitioner failed to do so within the stipulated time. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 04.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, The contention of the petitioner regarding parity t merit, as the co-accused had exercised their right to default bail prior to the filing of the challan, whereas the petitioner failed to do so within the In view of the above, this Court is of the considered trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail. No ground for interference is made out. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, The contention of the petitioner regarding parity accused had exercised their right to default bail prior to the filing of the challan, whereas the petitioner failed to do so within the In view of the above, this Court is of the considered trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for grant of default bail. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the present PUNEET SHARMA 2026.05.06 09.24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment