Jagroop Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 106 ) CRR-2187-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026
JAGROOP SINGH AND ANOTHER
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Jaskirat Singh Bhogal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
order dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner’s application for statutory/default
bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS was dismissed as “infructuous” on
the premise that extension of time for presentation of the challan had
already been granted. The petitioner assails the said order on the ground
that the premise was factually erroneous, as no extension order was in
existence when the statutory right to default bail was invoked.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:2:-

2. The petitioner was arrested on 21.02.2026 in FIR No.56 dated
21.02.2026, registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar. The statutory
period of 180 days expired on 20.08.2026 without presentation of the
challan. On the same date, the prosecution moved an application under
Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of time, which
remained pending consideration.
3. The petitioner invoked the right to default bail on 22.08.2026.
His application was, however, dismissed on the basis of the statement of
ASI Rachhpal Singh No.734 that a 15-day extension had already been
granted vide order dated 21.08.2026. The record, however, reveals that no
such order was passed on 21.08.2026; rather, the prosecution’s application
dated 20.08.2026 was adjudicated only on 26.08.2026, when a 15-day
extension was granted vide Annexure P-4. Thus, on 22.08.2026, as well as
on 24.08.2026 when the impugned order was passed, no subsisting order
extending the statutory period existed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the
subsequent order dated 26.08.2026 could not retrospectively defeat the
indefeasible right to default bail which had accrued upon expiry of the
prescribed 180-day period and was duly invoked on 22.08.2026. Reliance
is placed upon Sonu Kumar Saroj vs. State of Punjab, CRR-501 of 2026,
decided on 17.07.2026 . The extension order is further assailed for want of
notice to the petitioner and non-compliance with Section 36-A(4) of the
NDPS Act, relying upon Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRR-1637
of 2026, decided on 21.08.2026 , and Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:3:-

CRR-3299 of 2025, decided on 18.05.2026 . Learned counsel further
submits that, even assuming the extension dated 26.08.2026 to be valid,
the extended period of 15 days expired on 04.09.2026 and no challan/final
report has been presented till date. The petitioner, therefore, claims
statutory/default bail and seeks setting aside of the orders dated
22.08.2026 (Annexure P-3) and 24.08.2026 (Annexure P-1), along with
consequential release on default bail.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, accepts
notice on behalf of the State of Punjab and vehemently opposes the present
petition. It is submitted that no ground for interference is made out and
that the impugned order suffers from neither any illegality nor any
material infirmity. The State contends that the Trial Court has passed a
comprehensive and reasoned order after due consideration of the factual
matrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present petition
has accordingly been prayed for.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and, with their able assistance, have meticulously scrutinised the
record and perused the material placed on file.
8. The record further reveals that the prosecution’s application
seeking extension of time was ultimately considered and allowed only vide
order dated 26.08.2026, whereby an extension of 15 days was granted for
presentation of the challan. Thus, on 22.08.2026, when the petitioner
invoked his statutory right to default bail, as well as on 24.08.2026, when
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:4:-

the impugned order was passed, no order extending the statutory period
was in existence. The impugned order, therefore, rests upon a
demonstrably incorrect factual premise.
9. The default bail application was dismissed on the basis of the
statement of ASI Rachhpal Singh No.734 that a 15-day extension had
already been granted vide order dated 21.08.2026. The record, however,
unequivocally discloses that no such order was passed on 21.08.2026; the
prosecution’s application for extension was moved only on 20.08.2026 and
came to be decided on 26.08.2026. Consequently, when the statutory
period of 180 days expired on 20.08.2026 and the petitioner invoked his
right to default bail on 22.08.2026, no valid extension order was
subsisting. Upon expiry of the prescribed period without presentation of
the challan, and upon due invocation of the right, the petitioner acquired
an indefeasible right to default bail, as recognised in Sanjay Dutt vs. State
through CBI, (1994) 5 SCC 410 . The subsequent order dated 26.08.2026
could not retrospectively obliterate or defeat the right so accrued, nor
could an erroneous factual recital furnish a lawful basis to deny the same.
10. The impugned order dated 24.08.2026, having proceeded on
the wholly erroneous assumption that the statutory period had already been
extended vide order dated 21.08.2026, suffers from a material error going
to the root of the matter. The petitioner’s statutory entitlement was thus
denied on a factually nonexistent premise, rendering the impugned order
unsustainable in law.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:5:-

11. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2026 (Annexure P-1), as also
the order dated 22.08.2026 whereby the petitioner’s application for
statutory/default bail was rejected on the aforesaid erroneous premise, are
hereby set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to statutory/default bail
under Section 187(3) of the BNSS and is ordered to be released on default
bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following
conditions:-
i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person
from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating
Agency.
ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in
any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or
indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any
prosecution witness.
iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India
without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport,
the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating
Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:6:-

petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the
present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate
documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the
correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance
of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the
event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or
incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of
the concession of bail in accordance with law.
v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either
at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as
may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number
(PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank
accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable
properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or
furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for
seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with
law.
vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as
the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential
address or mobile number within seven days of such change.
vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature
during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the
learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal
appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s)
shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior
permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of
any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the
trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRR-2187-2026 (O&M) -:7:-

proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the
concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process,
including warrants of arrest.
12. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to
the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No
separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the
same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present
adjudication.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
11.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 09:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document