JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.144 dated 24.7.2012 registered at Police Station, ‘E’ Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar, for the offences under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was taken into Police custody on 24.7.2012 but the challan was not presented by the investigating agency within the period stipulated under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. which has already expired. Learned counsel further contended that a right has accrued to the petitioner after the expiry of the statutory period if challan has not been filed within the stipulated period and before filing the application. 3. A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that the challan was duly prepared by the SHO Sukhwinder Singh, but it was not forwarded for trial. Despite the Court issuing the notice to the State of Punjab, even then the challan was not filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the challan was not filed, a right accrued to the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but petitioner’s bail application has been dismissed on the ground that the challan was withheld at the instance and behest of the accused which fact is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the order passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar. Admittedly, challan was not presented within stipulated period as prescribed in Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. i.e. within 180 days. Admittedly, the application has been pending after the expiry of the period i.e. 180 days, by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Challan was not presented even after the filing of the application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on regular bail forthwith under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar dated 25.01.2013 dismissing the bail application only on the ground that challan was withheld by the police and intentionally not presented at the instance and behest of the accused, is incorrect and not as per law. 6. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (2) RCR (Cr.) 452 (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 an indefeasible right to get bail. 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 also fully applies in the present case. In another case, Hon’ble 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 chargesheet 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. 7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find merit in the present petition. The present petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————