Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438 & 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.71/2024 by the 8 th District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Annexure A/1), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section 167 of CrPC (Section 187 of BNSS) filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts of this case are that, a memo was issued by Mahadev Hospital to Police Station, Sirgitti regarding death of Ms. Pooja Ghaurasia due to unknown reason by her husband Aniket Kaushik in the hospital on 10.03.2024. On the basis of above memo, Sirgitti Police has registered the Merg No. 17/2024. The postmortem of the body was conducted in which the death was found due to hanging. The police has filed the charge-sheet U/s 306 & 201 of IPC before the JMFC, Bilaspur against the present applicant on the allegation that Mrs. Pooja Ghaurasia committed suicide instigation by the applicant. Hence, this case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that earlier the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 306 of IPC and the charges were framed and the witnesses were also examined. According to the further case, vide order dated 09.08.2024, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has directed the CID to investigate the case under Section 173(8) of CrPC as the cognizance has been taken by the Court. Charges were already framed, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get benefit under Section 167(2) of CrPC, therefore, the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the the application of the applicant. 5. Learned State Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record, therefore, it is not a case to set-aside the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the parties. The trial Court has rejected the application under Section 167 of CrPC/Section 187 of BNSS filed by the applicant on the basis of that “the indefeasible right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior to the filling of the challan and it does not survive or remain enforceable on the challan being filed, if already not availed of. Once the challan has been filed, the question of grant of bail has to be considered and decided only with reference to the merits of the case under the provisions relating to grant of bail to an accused after filing of the challan. The custody of the accused after the challan is filed is not governed by Section 167 but different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure . If that right had accrued to the accused but it remained unenforced till the filing of the challan, then there is no question of its enforcement thereafter since it is extinguished the moment challan is filed because Section 167 ceases to apply." Further, once a charge-sheet is filed, the right to default bail & is not resuscitated only because further investigation is pending. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.