Default bail under the NDPS Act requires strict compliance with extension safeguards; a mechanical order cannot defeat the accrued right.

Default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC crystallises once the final report period expires, unless the prosecution secures a valid extension in compliance with Section 36-A of the NDPS Act. Here, the extension was sought only because the chemical examiner's report had not been received, but the mandatory requirements of a Public Prosecutor's report showing investigation progress and compelling reasons for further detention, together with notice to the accused, were not shown to have been met. The extension order was therefore routine and mechanical, and it did not defeat the petitioner's right to default bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the prosecution obtaining extension of time under Section 36-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The period for filing the final report had expired, and the prosecution's request for extension was founded only on the non-receipt of the chemical examiner's report. The statutory scheme under Section 36-A requires a report of the Public Prosecutor showing progress of investigation and compelling reasons for continued detention beyond 180 days, along with notice to the accused. Those mandatory requirements were not shown to have been complied with, and the extension order was passed in a routine and mechanical manner. In these circumstances, the right to bail under Section 167(2) had crystallized.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to default bail, and the grant of extension by the trial court did not defeat that right.

---