Default bail under CrPC crystallises after sixty days when NDPS punishment is up to ten years and charge-sheet is delayed.

Where an NDPS offence is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years, the investigation must be completed and the charge-sheet filed within sixty days under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC. The alleged recovery was treated as falling below commercial quantity and within Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, so the sixty-day limit applied. Because the accused remained in custody beyond that period, applied for bail before filing of the charge-sheet, and was ready to furnish bail, the right to default bail had crystallised and could not be defeated by a later charge-sheet. Rejection of bail was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) proviso (a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the alleged NDPS offence attracted a maximum sentence of ten years and the charge-sheet had not been filed within sixty days of arrest.

Analysis: The alleged recovery of 250 grams of heroin was treated as falling below commercial quantity and within the category punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for which the maximum punishment is rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine. For such an offence, the statutory period for completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet was sixty days under Section 167(2) proviso (a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner had sought bail before filing of the charge-sheet, had remained in custody beyond the statutory period, and had expressed readiness to furnish bail. The court applied the principle that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right which crystallises on expiry of the statutory period and cannot be defeated by belated filing of the charge-sheet.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to default bail and the rejection of bail was not sustainable.

---