JUDGMENT Mr. K. C. Puri, J. (Oral):- Gurwinder Singh @ Mannu son of Kulbir Singh Walia has applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 20 dated 04.03.2011 under section 15/22/61/85 of the N.D.P.S Act, registered at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar. 2. The contraband was recovered from the house of the petitioner in the presence of Manga. The petitioner was arrested on 16.10.2012. He was produced in the Court on 17.10.2012. The petitioner, after a lapse of 180 days i.e on 16.04.2013 moved an application for grant of regular bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. However, in the meantime, the challan was presented on 17.04.2013 and the application of the petitioner for grant of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C was dismissed on 23.04.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority “Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra” 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 452 and “Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs. State GNCTD and others”, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 5094] : 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 875 and on the strength of same it is argued that in case the challan is not presented within the prescribed period, the accused get indefeasible right to get the concession of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 4. Learned State counsel could not dispute the said legal and factual position, but has submitted that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and as such, he is not entitled to concession of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 5. I have considered the said submissions and have gone through the records of the case. 6. From the bare perusal of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., there is no distinction in the said section that a proclaimed offender will not get the order of bail by default clause. The challan was admittedly not presented within 180 days i.e the prescribed period and the application for grant of bail was moved on 16.04.2013 after the expiry of 180 days. The challan was presented later on. The petitioner has the indefeasible right to get the concession of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 7. So, in view of the Uday Mohanlal Acharya’s case (supra) and Sayed Mohd. The challan was presented later on. The petitioner has the indefeasible right to get the concession of bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 7. So, in view of the Uday Mohanlal Acharya’s case (supra) and Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi’s case (supra), the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail by invoking the provisions of section 167 (2) Cr.P.c. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. Petitioner Gurwinder Singh @ Mannu is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————