[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12979]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 535/2024
1. Jagat Singh S/o Shri Kuldeep Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
2. Biram Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh. (At
Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
3. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
4. Shankar Singh S/o Shri Bagh Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Meghana, Tehsil Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Bhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 13/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 13/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT /03/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C., arising
out of FIR No.450/2023 registered at Police Station Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of
the NDPS Act. The petitioners have assailed the order dated
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:06:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12979] (2 of 4) [CRLR-535/2024]
28.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases-
cum-Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Nohar, Hanumangarh,
whereby their application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of statutory/default bail came to be rejected.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length,
perused the impugned order under challenge, and carefully
examined the material available on record.
3. Succinctly stated, the factual matrix giving rise to the
present proceedings is that the petitioners were arrested on
28.09.2023 and, on the very same day, were produced before the
competent Judicial Magistrate, whereupon an order of remand was
duly passed authorizing their detention.
3.1. It is a settled proposition of law that the detention of an
accused during investigation is circumscribed by the statutory
limitations prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which
stipulates that the investigation must be completed and the
charge-sheet filed within the prescribed period of 60 days, 90
days, or 180 days, as the case may be, depending upon the
nature and gravity of the offence, particularly under special
enactments such as the NDPS Act.
3.2. It is no longer res integra that the computation of the
aforesaid statutory period commences from the date on which the
accused is first produced before the Magistrate and remanded to
custody. For the purposes of such computation, either the date of
first remand or the terminal date is liable to be excluded.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:06:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12979] (3 of 4) [CRLR-535/2024]
3.3. Adverting to the facts of the present case, since the
petitioners were produced before the Magistrate on 28.09.2023,
the statutory period of 180 days would expire on 25.03.2024.
Thus, the investigating agency was under a legal obligation to file
the charge-sheet on or before the said date. However, it is an
admitted position on record that the charge-sheet was not filed
within the stipulated period and was instead presented on
26.03.2024, i.e., on the 181st day.
3.4. The petitioners, seeking to avail the indefeasible right
accruing under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., moved an application for
default bail on 26.03.2024. However, the record reveals that the
said application came to be filed subsequent to the submission of
the charge-sheet.
3.5. The legal position governing the field is well crystallized. The
right to be released on default bail is an indefeasible right which
accrues to an accused upon failure of the investigating agency to
file the charge-sheet within the prescribed statutory period.
However, such right is not automatic in its enforcement and must
be availed of by the accused prior to the filing of the charge-sheet.
In the event the charge-sheet is filed before the accused exercises
such right by filing an application for default bail, the said right
stands extinguished.
3.6. In the present case, although there was a delay in filing the
charge-sheet beyond the prescribed statutory period, the
petitioners failed to assert their right to default bail prior to the
filing of the charge-sheet. Since the application under Section
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:06:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12979] (4 of 4) [CRLR-535/2024]
167(2) Cr.P.C. was moved only after submission of the charge-
sheet, the indefeasible right, which may have accrued
momentarily, stood extinguished in law.
3.7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case
this Court is of the view that the learned trial court, while rejecting
the application for default bail, has rightly appreciated the legal
position and has not committed any jurisdictional error, illegality,
or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction.
4. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the
contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The revision
petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
5. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
97-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:06:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
