Orissa High Court
Sumanta Sundara And Another vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 17 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 624 of 2025
Sumanta Sundara and another .... Petitioners
Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
17.09.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioners challenging
the impugned order dated 18th 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 Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Puri, whereby, an application under Section
187(3) BNSS seeking default bail by them has been rejected.
3. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the period of 180 days expired on 15th August, 2025 and on
18th 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,
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 18th 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
18th 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.
6. 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 18th 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 16th
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
is indeed a fundamental right of the accused and therefore, on
16th 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 18th 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 2nd 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 16th August, 2025.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered.
10. 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 15th August, 2025, upon such verification
from the record, the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Puri shall immediately release the petitioners on
bail under Section 187(3) BNSS in connection with Special
G.R. Case No.24 of 2025 by imposing suitable conditions as
deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
