CRM-M-33806-2011 [ 1 ] :::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33806-2011 Date of decision: 23 .12.2011 Sanjeev Kumar @ Rana ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. A.S.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.19 dated 01.02.2011, under Sections 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short “the Act”] at Police Station City, Ropar, District Ropar. The petitioner had applied for bail before the learned Court below in terms of Section 36-A(2) of the Act on the ground that the challan has not been presented within the statutory period of 180 days from the date of his arrest, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Ropar vide his order dated 17.10.2011 on the ground that the challan was presented on 180th day of the arrest of the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the challan was presented on 181st of the arrest of the petitioner which has been accepted to be correct by the learned State Counsel. He has further submitted that on the 181st day, the petitioner had moved an application for bail, but on the same day, after the application was filed, the challan was presented, which is disputed by the learned State Counsel. He has submitted that the challan was presented earlier to the filing of the bail application. The question arises in this case is as to whether “an accused is entitled for bail under Section 36-A(2) of the Act, if the challan is presented on the 181st day from the date of his arrest or in other words, the date on which the challan is presented is to be counted or not?” CRM-M-33806-2011 [ 2 ] :::::: Learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the period of 180 days has to be counted and if the challan is presented on 181st day, i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of 180 days, then the petitioner is entitled for bail, whereas the learned State Counsel has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Billu @ Gurjit v. State of Haryana, 1999(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 762 wherein it has been held that the day on which the challan is presented is not to be counted. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record from which I have found that admittedly the challan was presented on the 181st day and it is not clear as to whether it was presented before the application for bail is filed by the petitioner or not. However, it has been held in Billu @ Gurjit's case (supra) that if the challan is presented on the next day after the expiry of statutory period, then the said day shall not be included. In the aforesaid case, the period of 90 days was over on 27.09.1998 and the challan was presented on 28.09.1998 i.e. 91st day. It was held that the investigation shall be deemed to have been over when the challan was put in the Court and the investigation shall be deemed to be in currency up to 27.09.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any precedent to the contrary to the precedent which has been cited by the learned State Counsel. In this view of the matter, it is held that if the challan is presented after the expiry of 180 days on the 181st day, the said day shall not be counted and the petitioner would not be entitled for bail under the the default clause of Section 36-A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. December 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE