CRM -M No. 28047 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM -M No. 28047 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.11.2011 Sanjeev Kumar @ Rana ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A. S. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of bail pending trial. The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 13 dated 4.2.2011, registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station, Bhadson, District Patiala. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested on 4.2.2011. The challan was to be presented within 180 days of his arrest, which expired on 2.8.2011. The challan having not been presented, the petitioner has absolute right of bail. Investigating agency had not moved any application even for extension of time. The learned court below was wrong in observing that 180th day expired on 3.8.2011, the date on which the challan was presented. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that even when the file was put up before the District Attorney on 2.8.2011, he had given his note that investigation of the case pertaining to huge quantity of recovery has been done in a very casual manner. That was the 180th day of the custody of the accused, but the investigation was still incomplete and the Investigating officer was not even ready to move application for getting extension of time. CRM -M No. 28047 of 2011 (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The issue as to what course is to be adopted in case the challan is not filed within 180 days after arrest of the accused, has been dealt with in Rakesh Kumar and another vs State of Punjab 2011 (3) R. C. R. (Criminal) 297, wherein this court held that in case of non-presentation of challan within the stipulated period, the accused gets indefeasible right of bail. Considering the enunciation of law, as referred to above, in my opinion, as the challan in the present case was not presented within 180 days of the arrest of the accused, the petitioner has right of bail. He is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Patiala. However, as has even been noticed by the District Attorney and the facts of the present case show that there is lapse in investigation and on account of non-presentation of challan, the petitioner has to be released on bail, though the alleged recovery from the petitioner is 23 bags of poppy husk and the petitioner was arrested from the spot, let the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, get the matter enquired into and fix the responsibility of the guilty officials and take appropriate action against them for not discharging their duty diligently. The petition stands disposed of. 17.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge