ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking regular bail to the petitioners/A2 in Crime No.305 of 2021 on the file Abdullapurmet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8© read with 20 (B) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record. 3. The case of the Abdullapurmet Police is that they have arrested this petitioner and others for the reason of being in possession of 200 Kgs of dry ganja. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against this petitioner and Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 are shown as absconding. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner without going into the merits of the case, argued that the police had filed charge sheet after the prescribed time for filing final report. The crime was lodged on 22.09.2021 and period of 180 days comes to an end by 31.03.2022. Further the Special Judge had given an extention of two months for the purpose of concluding the investigation which expired on 31.05.2022. However, the charge sheet was filed on 21.05.2022 but the same was returned on 26.05.2022 for the reasons which are recorded. 5. Since the time of two months granted by the Special Court expires on 31.05.2022 and as on that date there is no charge sheet which was filed or pending before the Special Court, for which reason, the petitioner is entitled to default bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. 6. He relied on the Judgment of Supreme Court in Nagesh Kumar singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6975/2019, dt.15.10.2019, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held that when the charge sheet was filed after four days expiry of statutory period of 90 days, the petitioner ought to have been released under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., accordingly, the Supreme Court directed release of the petitioner on default bail. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor had relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi & Others in Criminal Appeal Nos.185-186 of 2022, dt.07.02.2022, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that though a right accrues to the accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., if the charge sheet is not filed in time. 8. The facts of the above case are that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) went to the Supreme Court questioning the order of the High Court whereby the High Court granted statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C on the ground that on completion of statutory period under Section 167 of Cr.P.C, the Court had not taken cognizance of the complaint, for which reason as a matter of indefeasible right, bail was granted. However, the Honourable Supreme Court had set aside the Judgment of the High Court on the ground that on that date, though congnizance was not taken, the charge sheet was already filed before the concerned Court. Further, the Supreme Court held that the law laid down in Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and another, [ (2013) 3 SCC 77 ] when once the charge sheet is filed, it is sufficient that the charge sheet is on record and it is not necessary that the cognizance has to be taken by the concerned Court. It has to be seen whether as on the date of the statutory period being complete either 60, 90 of 180 days a charge sheet has to be filed before the concerned Court irrespective of whether a cognizance is taken by the concerned Court or not. 9. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed on 21.05.2022 and the same was returned on 26.05.2022. However, as on the date of 31.05.2022 there was no charge sheet which was on the file of the concerned Court. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be said that filing a charge sheet and taking it back would amount to a charge sheet being filed and the accused losing his indefeasible right of seeking bail from the Court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. When the charge sheet was not filed within the extended period of two months which expired on 31.05.2022 the right of bail accrues to the accused, which contention cannot be denied. 11. When the charge sheet was not filed within the extended period of two months which expired on 31.05.2022 the right of bail accrues to the accused, which contention cannot be denied. 11. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra held that the right under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C cannot be exercised after the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. Supreme Court observed as follows: “So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant Nos. 1 to 6 were taken into custody on 16.1.1993. The charge sheet was submitted on 30.8.1993; obviously beyond the statutory period under Section 20(4)(b). There is nothing on record lo show that provisions of Section 20(4)(bb) were applied in respect of appellants. They had become entitled to he released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code read with Section 20(4)(b) of the TADA. But it is an admitted position that no application for bail on the said ground was made on behalf of the appellants. Unless applications had been made on behalf of the appellants, there was no question of their being released on ground of default in completion of the investigation within the statutory period, It is now settled that this right cannot be exercised after the charge-sheet has been submitted and eognizance has been taken, because in that event the remand of the accused concerned including one who is alleged to have committed an offence under TADA, is not under Section 167(2) but under other provisions of the Code. This has been specifically considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt v. Stale through C.B.I. Bombay (II), [1994] 5 SCC 410. It was said : "The "indefeasible right" of the accused lo be released on bail in accordance with Section 20(4)(bb)of the TADA Act read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in default of completion of the investigation and filing of the challan within the time allowed, as held in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur is a right which enures to and is enforceable by the accused only from the time of default till the filing of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed.” 12. In case of a bail application being filed after expiry of statutory period which is 180 days or the extended period as ordered by the Court and before filing charge sheet, the Court has no other option but to release the accused on bail as of right under section 167 CRPC. 13. However if the bail application is filed after charge sheet is filed though after expiry of statutory period, the accused is not entitled to statutory bail and the requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act have to be met before grant of bail. 14. In the present case the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period however it was filed 16 days thereafter that is on 16.06.2022. The bail application was not made in between 31.05.2022 and 16.06.2022. In the said circumstances the right of bail under 167 CRPC is extinguished. For the said reasons, petitioner/Accused No.2 is not entitled to be released on bail under 167 CRPC. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.