Subsequent Extension Cannot Retrospectively Defeat Default Bail Right Accrued After 180 Days; Rejection Based on Non-Existent Extension Order Set Aside: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Jagroop Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: September 11, 2026

Citation: CRR No. 2187 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the statutory period for completing the investigation and presenting the challan has expired, and the accused applies for default bail before any valid extension order is passed, an indefeasible right to statutory bail accrues in his favour. An order subsequently extending the period for filing the challan cannot operate retrospectively to extinguish or defeat that accrued right.

The Court further held that default bail cannot be denied on the basis of an extension order that did not exist on the date the right was invoked. Where the bail application was dismissed on the factually incorrect statement of a police official that an extension had already been granted, the rejection order suffered from a material error going to the root of the matter and was legally unsustainable.

Summary: The criminal revision arose from FIR No. 56 dated February 21, 2026, registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar. The petitioners were arrested on February 21, 2026 and remained in custody while the investigation continued.

The statutory period of 180 days prescribed for completing the investigation in an NDPS case expired on August 20, 2026 without presentation of the challan. On that date, the prosecution filed an application under Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 seeking an extension of time. The extension application, however, remained pending and no order allowing it had been passed.

After expiry of the 180-day period, the petitioners invoked their right to statutory or default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on August 22, 2026. Their application was dismissed on the basis of a statement made by ASI Rachhpal Singh that the time for presenting the challan had already been extended by 15 days through an order dated August 21, 2026.

The record examined by the High Court revealed that no extension order had been passed on August 21, 2026. The prosecution’s application dated August 20, 2026 was considered and allowed only on August 26, 2026, when the Court granted an extension of 15 days. Thus, neither on August 22, when the petitioners claimed default bail, nor on August 24, when the impugned order was passed, was there any subsisting judicial order extending the statutory investigation period.

The petitioners argued that the subsequent extension granted on August 26 could not retrospectively take away the right to default bail that had already accrued upon expiry of 180 days and had been duly invoked on August 22. They further challenged the extension for want of notice and alleged non-compliance with Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act. It was additionally pointed out that even the extended period had expired on September 4, 2026 and no challan had been filed by the date of hearing.

The State opposed the revision by contending that the Trial Court had passed a reasoned order after considering the relevant facts and law and that no illegality or material infirmity warranting interference had been established.

The High Court found that the orders rejecting default bail proceeded upon a demonstrably incorrect factual premise. The judicial record unequivocally established that the prosecution’s request for an extension was decided only on August 26, four days after the petitioners had invoked their statutory right.

Relying upon Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, (1994) 5 SCC 410, the Court reiterated that once the prescribed period expires without presentation of the challan and the accused duly invokes the right to default bail, the right becomes indefeasible. A subsequent extension order cannot retrospectively obliterate a right that had already accrued.

The Court accordingly concluded that the petitioners’ statutory entitlement had been denied on the basis of a factually non-existent order. The subsequent grant of extension could not validate the earlier rejection or deprive the petitioners of the benefit of default bail.

Decision: The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the orders dated August 22 and August 24, 2026 rejecting the petitioners’ application for statutory bail. The petitioners were held entitled to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS and were ordered to be released upon furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent Magistrate.