1. Petitioners-accused are being tried for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302,120-B, 201 RFC. They had filed an application for grant of bail wherein they had claimed the benefit of Section 167(2) Cr. P. C, same has been rejected by the trial court vide order detailed order dated 24.5.2011. Dissatisfied therewith, instant revision petition has been filed. 2. First it is projected that the charge sheet (challan) has been presented in absence of documents, such as postmortem report, FSL report and the medical report indicating the cause of death. It being so, the charge sheet (challan) does not satisfy the requirement of sub-section 5(a) of Section 173 Cr. P. C. 3. Learned counsel would contend that the charge sheet (challan), which was incomplete as not accompanied by the said documents, was presented only to defeat the right of the petitioners as had accrued to them in view of Section 167(2) Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment captioned Matchumari China Venkatareddy & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994 Cri. L. J. 257), wherein it has been held that mere filing of charge sheet within prescribed time, unaccompanied by the material papers as contemplated under Section 173(5) renders it incomplete and such filing of charge sheet amounts to failure to file the same which in turn confers on the accused right to be released on bail under Section 167(2) but this judgment has been overruled by the same High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgment Venkataraynakote Krishnappa Raghavendra v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009 Cri. L. J 3168). Para 22 of the said judgment is relevant to be quoted: "22.From the conspectus of discussion, referred to above, we are of the view that once a charge sheet is filed for a cognizable offence by the investigating officer contains all particulars mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 173 is a valid police report irrespective of fact that it does not contain some of the documents required to be filed under Section 173(5) particularly, various reports as mentioned in our earlier paragraphs. If the said reports are not appended to police report that can be produced by supplying copies of the same to the accused at a later stage with the permission of the Court. It is the discretion of the prosecution to enclose the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. If the said reports are not appended to police report that can be produced by supplying copies of the same to the accused at a later stage with the permission of the Court. It is the discretion of the prosecution to enclose the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses." 4. The principle as laid down in the said Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court covers the position of the submission as projected because investigation of the case had been completed in all respects, only postmortem report has been produced subsequently. Late production of the postmortem report does not render the charge sheet as incomplete. 5. Trial court in the order under challenge has specifically dealt with the issue. Trial court has rightly pointed out that the charge sheet (challan) was presented well within the stipulated period of 60 days and has rightly noticed that the accused No. 1 had been arrested on 23.9.2010, the charge sheet has been presented on 16.11.2010, which would mean that the charge sheet was presented on the 53rd day of arrest of the accused No. 1: 6. Next it was contended that the case squarely rests on circumstantial evidence. The postmortem report, FSL report and the medical report are the vital documents; therefore, presenting of charge sheet unaccompanied by such documents would mean that the challan was presented as incomplete. 7. This ground is without substance. The investigation of the case had been completed, FSL report was received and all other evidence was completed, no further investigation was to be conducted. Normally collection of report from the concerned agencies takes some time. Filing of such documents subsequently will not render filing of charge sheet as incomplete. 8. Next it was contended that right under Section 167(2) Cr. P. C is an indefeasible right and the accused cannot be deprived of such right by subsequent filing of charge sheet. 9. Submission, in principle, is quite genuine. Right to claim bail by default is a guaranteed right, has to be availed in time and if availed but not granted, such right is protected, as being indefeasible. The question is whether such right has accrued to the accused, answer has to be "no" because charge sheet has been presented well within the stipulated time. Right to claim bail by default is a guaranteed right, has to be availed in time and if availed but not granted, such right is protected, as being indefeasible. The question is whether such right has accrued to the accused, answer has to be "no" because charge sheet has been presented well within the stipulated time. The contention that the charge sheet was incomplete already stand repelled, therefore, once it is concluded that the charge sheet was complete when it was filed on 53rd day of arrest of the accused No. 1, there is no question of accrual of such right. 10. It is trite that on the expiry of stipulated period of 60 days an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account default by the investigating agency in completion of the investigation and the accused has to be released if he is prepared to furnish the bail as shall be directed. It is also settled that when an application is filed on accrual of such right, then such right becomes indefeasible. If declined by the courts below can be granted by the superior courts. It is only on accrual of right followed by filing of application right becomes indefeasible. It is in this connection learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the judgment captioned Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2001 SC 1910 ) but in the facts and circumstances of this case no right has accrued to the petitioners, therefore, the said judgment is of no help to them. 11. For the stated reasons, the order impugned passed by the trial court does not call for any interference, same is maintained. Revision petition, accordingly, dismissed along with connected bail application. Petitioners shall be at liberty to move fresh regular bail application, if they so choose, before the trial court which the trial court shall decide on its merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of the revision petition. 12. Trial court record along with copy of the order be send back forthwith.