Disposed

Sumanta Sundara v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Sept 2025CRLREV/624/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of a Section 187(3) BNSS default bail application in an NDPS/Arms Act case. The High Court held the indefeasible right to default bail accrued on expiry of 180 days and directed release of the petitioners on bail upon verification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS by the District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Puri, subject to verification that 180 days expired on 15 August 2025, with s

Sumanta Sundara Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No. 624 of 2025

¶3

Sumanta Sundara and another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶10

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

17.09.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

¶15

¶16

Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 18^th August, 2025 as at Annexure-6 series passed in Special G.R. Case No.24 of 2025 (T.R. Case No.107 of 2025) by the learned District and Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Puri, whereby, an application under Section 187(3) BNSS seeking default bail by them has been rejected.

¶17

Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the period of 180 days expired on 15^th August, 2025 and on 18^th August, 2025, an application seeking default bail in terms of Section 187(3) BNSS as at Annexure-4 was pressed into service but the learned court below having received the chargesheet on the said date itself and on the premise that the remedy has not been availed of despite an application received,

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

rejected such release. The submission is that the petitioners should have been released on default bail upon expiry of 180 days. The contention is that upon such expiry of the statutory period, the petitioners, having applied for default bail, were entitled to be released but it has been refused vide Annexure-6 by order date 18^th August, 2025 and the same is, therefore, not legally tenable and thus, liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by consequential directions issued.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State would submit that the learned court below did not commit any error since on the date of the application under Section 187(3) BNSS as per Annexure-4, the chargesheet was also filed and hence, the same was considered and it was disposed of denying default bail to the petitioners.

¶21

The petitioners stand chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 21(c), 29 of the NDPS Act besides Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The application of the petitioners is at Annexure-3 and it reveals that the same was received by the learned court below during the first hour of the Court’s business at 10.20 AM. It is also revealed from Annexure-3 that the petitioners were supplied the police papers at 10.45 AM on the said day. From the impugned order dated 18^th August, 2025 i.e. Annexure-6 series, it is also revealed that by the time the application was received, the chargesheet had not been filed. From the above, it is suggested that by the time, when the application under Section 187(3) BNSS was filed and received, there was no chargesheet.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

Under the above circumstances, the question is, whether, the petitioners were entitled to go on bail under Section 187(3) BNSS? The Court finds that a preliminary chargesheet was filed against the petitioners and others. Since, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioners, it has been considered by the learned court below and ultimately, the default was denied by order dated 18^th August, 2025. The filing of the preliminary chargesheet shall have to be considered as final as against the petitioners even though the investigation is kept open in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

¶24

Law is well settled that any such application, if received, it should be promptly disposed of. In the instant case, on the date of application moved, the preliminary chargesheet was received and both have been taken into account to deal with the request of the petitioners for default bail, while disposing of the application at Annexure-4 and therefore, it can be said that the application received from them was immediately dealt with and disposed of refusing default bail.

¶25

The Court is, however, of the view that as soon as the stipulated period of 180 days expired, it is the duty of the Court to inform the accused about the right to go on default bail. In other words, after expiry of the stipulated period, on 16^th August, 2025, it was the bounden duty of the learned Court below to inform the petitioners about such a right. Law is also well settled that right to go on bail is an indefeasible right and the same cannot be defeated for whatever reasons. Such a right

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

is indeed a fundamental right of the accused and therefore, on 16^th August, 2025, it was for the learned court below to inform the petitioners about it. Even though, the application as per Annexure-4 was received from the petitioners on 18^th August, 2025, it is reiterated that the learned court below was to apprise them about the right of default bail on 16th August, 2025. Nothing is on record to suggest that the petitioners were informed about the right of default bail at any time before the preliminary chargesheet was filed and received by the leaned court below. The Court is, therefore, of the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to go on bail in term of Section 187(3) BNSS. Such is the view expressed by this Court recently in a judgment in CRLREV No.312 of 2022 in Ajay Singh Vrs. State of Odisha decided and disposed of on 2^nd September, 2025. With the above conclusion, the Court is of the view that the learned court below should have considered release of the petitioners on bail on expiry of the statutory period since an indefeasible right accrued in their favour should have been informed to them on 16^th August, 2025.

¶28

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶29

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that in case, 180 days expired on 15^th August, 2025, upon such verification from the record, the learned District and Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Puri shall immediately release the petitioners on bail under Section 187(3) BNSS in connection with Special

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

G.R. Case No.24 of 2025 by imposing suitable conditions as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶32