Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC Cannot Be Limited Till FSL Report—Once Granted, It Continues Till Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“It was highly unjust for the Special Judge to have imposed a condition on interim bail till filing of FSL report, in a case involving intermediate quantity or where the restrictions under Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply,” held Justice Anoop Chitkara of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 16, 2025, while allowing a criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC.

In a significant reaffirmation of the statutory right to default bail, the Court declared that once the accused becomes entitled to bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, it cannot be limited in duration or made conditional upon procedural milestones such as the filing of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. Such a condition, the Court held, is legally unjustifiable, especially when the recovered quantity is not commercial and Section 37 NDPS Act is inapplicable.

“A Right Once Accrued Under Section 167(2) CrPC Cannot Be Whittled Down by Procedural Conditions”: Court Converts Default Bail into Regular Bail Under Section 439 CrPC

The petitioner, Rajesh, had approached the High Court against the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Special Court, Kurukshetra, which granted him default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC but restricted its duration till the filing of the FSL report. The default bail had been granted due to the police’s failure to file the final report (challan) within the stipulated time.

The case was registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, but the contraband allegedly attributed to the petitioner was 11 kg of Ganja, classified as an intermediate quantity, thus not attracting the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act.

The Court found that the petitioner had been arrested solely based on the disclosure statement of the main accused Beero, and no recovery was made from him directly. Beero himself had already been granted bail till the conclusion of trial by the High Court.

Justice Chitkara clarified:

“It was unjust for the trial Court to have granted interim bail for limited period, whereas the rigours of Section 37 did not apply... On this ground alone, the impugned order is modified. The words ‘till filing of FSL report’ are deleted from para 10 of the said order.”

Arrest Based Solely on Co-Accused’s Disclosure Statement—No Recovery From Petitioner

The case arose from FIR No. 252 dated 09.05.2022, registered at Police Station City Thanesar, wherein the police had allegedly recovered 11 kg of Ganja each from co-accused Beero and Tarun Kumar, acting on secret information. Based on Beero’s disclosure statement, the petitioner Rajesh was arrested on 13.06.2022, though no contraband was recovered from him.

The police failed to file the final report within the prescribed 60 days (for intermediate quantity), and the petitioner applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, which was allowed by the Special Court only till the FSL report was filed.

The petitioner challenged this condition as being contrary to settled law, arguing that default bail is a statutory right, and once accrued, it cannot be revoked or restricted arbitrarily.

Whether Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Made Conditional or Time-Bound in NDPS Cases Not Attracting Section 37

The central question before the Court was whether, in cases involving intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act, a court could impose temporal limitations on a bail granted under Section 167(2) CrPC, by making it contingent on the filing of the FSL report.

Justice Chitkara held that such conditionality violates the essence of default bail, stating:

“Once the accused earns right to default bail due to non-filing of charge-sheet within statutory period, such bail cannot be restricted in duration. Default bail is a right and not subject to limitation like conditional interim bail.”

The Court also held that, although the petitioner had filed a revision petition instead of a fresh bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the Court would not defeat substantive justice on procedural grounds:

“Instead of asking the petitioner to file fresh petition under Section 439 CrPC… this Court proceeds to consider this revision petition as regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.”

Bail Cannot Be Treated as a Favour or Suspended Right—Presumption of Innocence Remains Fundamental

Justice Chitkara underscored the constitutional underpinnings of personal liberty, ruling that bail, once granted on statutory grounds, cannot be curtailed artificially:

“Bail is not absolute freedom but a temporary release subject to certain conditions… However, once default bail is granted, it cannot be transformed into an interim liberty, conditional upon procedural steps like FSL report filing, especially where Section 37 is not applicable.”

The Court also noted that the petitioner had been arrested only on the basis of a disclosure statement, a point which weakened the evidentiary basis for continued incarceration.

Conditionality Removed, Bail Made Absolute Till Conclusion of Trial

Accordingly, the High Court passed the following operative directions:

“The impugned order dated 14.12.2022 is modified. The words ‘till filing of FSL report’ are deleted. The bail granted vide order dated 14.12.2022 is made absolute and shall continue till the conclusion of trial, subject to the conditions already imposed.”

The petition was thus allowed, and the default bail was regularised as a permanent bail under Section 439 CrPC, not limited to any investigative formality.

Reaffirming the Non-Conditional Nature of Default Bail—Proportionality and Fairness Must Govern Bail Orders in NDPS Cases

This judgment reaffirms the well-settled position that default bail is not a concession but a right, and courts cannot impose extraneous conditions that dilute the protection granted by Section 167(2) CrPC. Especially in NDPS cases where the quantity involved is not commercial, and the accused is not directly connected to recovery, courts must exercise judicial discretion in a proportional and rights-oriented manner.

Justice Chitkara’s ruling aligns with a growing judicial sentiment that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights, and that bail jurisprudence must be rooted in constitutional values of liberty and fairness.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025