JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- This petition has been filed under Section 439/167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.91 dated 03.10.2012 under Sections 18 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that challan in the present case has been presented after the lapse of 180 days. The petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2012 and he filed the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 05.04.2013, which was taken up on 06.04.2013. He further argued that if it is taken that challan was filed on 06.04.2013, even then, when the application was presented in the Court on 05.04.2013, and the challan had not been presented till then, therefore, the petitioner got indefeasible right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of bail. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application by stating that challan has already been presented, therefore, bail could not be granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel. 5. From the record, I find that to prove the fact that application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was presented on 05.04.2013, certified copy of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 06.04.2013 has been placed on the record. The perusal of said certified copy shows that application was filed on 05.04.2013. On the other hand, photocopy of the acknowledgment regarding presentation of challan has also been placed on record, which shows the date as 06.04.2013. Therefore, it is clear that when the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was filed, then the period of 180 days had already been lapsed and at that time, no challan was presented before the Court. Therefore, the petitioner had the indefeasible right for bail and the challan was presented after the presentation of the application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regular bail as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (2) RCR (Cr.) 452 (3 Judges Bench) that if charge-sheet is not filed within the period stipulated in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the accused gets an indefeasible right to get bail. The accused must be held to have availed this right when he filed bail application. The accused must be held to have availed this right when he filed bail application. Subsequent filing of challan will not extinguish the right of the accused to get bail. This citation fully applies in the present case. In another case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD and others, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 5094] : 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 875 (3 Judges Bench), has held that if charge-sheet is not filed within the period stipulated in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the accused gets statutory right of release on bail. However, where no application was filed for bail on expiry of 90 days and charge-sheet came to be filed, the accused loses his right of statutory bail and can thereafter, only apply for regular bail. This citation also fully applies in the present case. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find merit in the present petition. The present petition is accepted and it is ordered that petitioner be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur. --------0.B.S.0------------