Default bail under Section 167(2) fails once the complaint is filed within the statutory NDPS period.

Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was unavailable because, in NDPS proceedings, the complaint was filed within the 180-day statutory period under Section 36A(4). The court held that the right to default bail accrues only when investigation remains incomplete and the charge-sheet or complaint is not filed in time, and that this right is lost once such filing is made before release. Administrative registration or later placement before the concerned judge did not revive the expired entitlement, and absence of cognizance did not alter the result. The petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that cognizance had not been taken and the complaint was placed before the court after the expiry of the statutory period under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The statutory right under Section 167(2) accrues only when the investigation is not completed and the charge-sheet or complaint is not filed within the prescribed period. In NDPS matters, the relevant period was 180 days under Section 36A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The complaint was laid before the Principal Judge within that period, and the subsequent administrative act of registration and placement before the concerned Judge did not revive any right of default bail. The court also held that once the charge-sheet or complaint is filed within time, the right to default bail is lost, and the contention that cognizance was a prerequisite for continued custody did not assist the applicant.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to default bail, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Default bail under Section 167(2) is unavailable where the charge-sheet or complaint is filed within the statutory period, and the right, being not indefeasible, is lost once such filing occurs before release on bail.

---