BISWA RANJAN ROUTRAY vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
BLAPL/1999/2026
ODHC010136072026
2026:OHC:251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026
(CNR No. ODHC010136072026)
In the matter of application under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
…
Biswa Ranjan Routray … Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha Opp. Party
…
Advocate(s) Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - Mr.Devashis Panda,
Mr.Sudipto Panda, Advocates
For Opp. Party - Mr.C.R. Swain,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 29.10.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in connection with T.R.
st
Case No.79 of 2025, pending on the file of learned 1
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under
NDPS Act, Khurda, arising out of Khordha Industrial
Estate P.S. Case No.177 of 2025 for alleged
1 2
commission of offences under Sections 21(c) /29 of the
1
20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and
cannabis. —Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule
or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures,
possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State
or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any
manufactured drug shall be punishable,—
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 1 of 11
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
.
(In short, “N.D.P.S. Act”)
3. Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that
except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of
the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. case
is pending in any other Court.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his
3
applications for bail u/s 483 of the BNSS by the
( C ) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years
and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but
which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
2
29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
—(1) Whoever
abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable
under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in
consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence,
within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the
criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond
India which—
( a ) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
( b ) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute
it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required
to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within
India.
3
483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
.—
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct,—
( a ) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on
bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section
480, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes
mentioned in that sub-section;
( b ) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any
person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before
granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable
with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 2 of 11
learned Spl. Judge under NDPS Act, Khurda, by order
dated 10.02.2026 in the aforementioned case, the
present BLAPL has been filed.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that he is in custody since 28.07.2025 on the
accusation of being in possession of contraband (brown
sugar) to the tune of 320 grams. His further
continuance in custody is punitive because of the
infraction of his “indefeasible right” to be released on
5
default bail on account of violation of Section 36-A(4)
of the N.D.P.S. Act, in the process of his fundamental
4
right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is
infringed.
6. In the present bail application, the right of the
Petitioner for default bail in violation of the statutory
prescription for completion of investigation as enjoined in
5
terms of Section 36-A(4) the N.D.P.S. Act is urged.
Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is
not practicable to give such notice:
Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before
granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under Section 65
or sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, give
notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application.
4
21. Protection of life and personal liberty .—No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
5
36-A. Offences triable by Special Courts .—(4) In respect of persons
accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-
A or for offences involving commercial quantity the references in sub-section (2)
of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) thereof to
“ninety days”, where they occur, shall be construed as reference to “one
hundred and eighty days”:
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 3 of 11
7. In this context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner is relying on the list of dates, which run thus:
“LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
28.07.2025 -Khordha Industrial Estate P.S. Case
No. 177 of 2025 registered. Petitioner arrested and
forwarded to Court and remanded till 08.08.2025
(p. 8-14 Annexure-I). Arrest Memo and Grounds
prepared and given (Annexure-3)
29.07.2025 - Sample drawn in Court for C.E.
15.01.2026 - Petitioner remanded till 28.01.2026
by court awaiting charge-sheet which is much
th
beyond the 180 day of his remand.
22.01.2026 - The charge-sheet (Annexure-I/I)
though dated on this date was neither received nor
put up before the remanding Court.
th
23.01.2026 - 180 day of Petitioner's remand
when no charge-sheet was available in the case
record and he was not produced, nor made aware of
his indefeasible right of bail and asked if he was
prepared to offer sureties and go on bail.
24.01.2026 - Charge-sheet dt. 22.01.2026 placed
st
in court on 181 day when Petitioner was not
produced, (p.33 Annexure-2).
27.01.2026 - Case record put up on strength of
advance petition filed by Petitioner's counsel with
prayer to release the accused on bail in terms of s.
187(2) BNSS 2023 and while admitting that the
chargesheet had been submitted on the 181st day
Provided that, if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the
said period of one hundred and eighty days, the Special Court may extend the
said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the
progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the
accused beyond the said period of one hundred and eighty days.
(2) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be
obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under
Section 65 or sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
(3) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been
released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 4 of 11
of the initial remand since petition u/s. 187(2) BNSS
2023 was filed after charge-sheet was submitted
the Petitioner was not entitled to be released on
bail.
10.02.2026 - Petitioner's prayer for bail moved
and rejected by the learned court below which is
impugned in this BLAPL. (Annexure-3).
xxx xxx xxx”
8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Panda, that since admittedly the charge
th
sheet was not submitted in Court by the 180 day and
no extension was sought for in terms of the statutory
5
provision of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
keeping in view his indefeasible right, which is
sacrosanct, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on
default bail.
9. And, in this context, a reference is made to the
impugned order dated 10.02.2026 at Annexure-3 by
which the prayer of the Petitioner for grant of bail on
default as is known in common parlance, was rejected.
10. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to
the order at Annexure-3 wherein the specific stand of the
Petitioner was noted by the learned Special Judge and is
extracted hereunder:
“Further, he also submitted that the investigation
has already been completed and the I.O. submitted
charge sheet on 24.01.2026 after lapse of 180 days.
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 5 of 11
It is the further submission of Mr. Panda,
learned counsel for the Petitioner that the prayer of the
Petitioner for default bail was earlier dealt with by order
dated 27.01.2026 and was rejected inter alia relying on
the judgment of the Apex Court in case of M. Ravindran
v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence; (2021) 2 SCC 485 and the judgment
relied on by the Petitioner in case of Enforcement
Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil
Wadhwan & another; Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702
of 2020 was ignored.
11. On perusal of the impugned order, it is
manifestly clear that while the order dealt with the
accusation of the Petitioner being allegedly found to be
in possession of 320 grams of brown sugar and the
6
rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, the
order is conspicuously silent regarding the alleged
5
violation of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
th
12. To fortify his submission that on the 180 day,
if the investigation is not concluded, the Petitioner has a
right to be enlarged on bail. The Petitioner relies on the
6
37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. —(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
( b ) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under
Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
( ii ) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of
such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 6 of 11
decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra
Sahoo @ Sura @ Sarat Chandra Sahoo @ Somanath
7
v. State of Odisha , as well as Gopal Pal v. State of
8
Odisha .
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State places
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, on which
reliance was also placed by the learned Trial Court in the
case of M. Ravindran (Supra) .
It is also the submission of the learned counsel
for the State that by order dated 27.01.2026 the prayer
for pre-arrest bail was rejected. And the same not
having been assailed, the present bail application is
liable to be rejected on the said score alone.
14. This Court has extracted the order at Annexure-
3 by which the prayer of the Petitioner for bail was
rejected, wherein it has been categorically stated that
the charge sheet in question was submitted on
24.01.2026.
As, by the impugned order at Annexure-3 dated
10.02.2026, the Petitioner also sought release on
5
account of infraction of Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S.
Act, not entertaining this application on account of the
order dated 27.01.2026 not having been challenged, in
7
Suresh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 7128.
8
Gopal Pal v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 1085.
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 7 of 11
the considered view of this Court, would amount to
sacrificing the right of an accused at the altar of
technicality. As such, this Court does not find force in the
said submission of the learned Public Prosecutor.
15. An affidavit has been filed by the IIC in the case
at hand refuting the prayer for release of the Petitioner
on default bail. Paragraph-4 thereof, which is germane
for adjudication, is extracted hereunder:
“4. That it is further respectfully submitted that after
preparation of Charge-Sheet vide C.S. No. 16 dated
22.01.2026, the I.O. could not able to submit on the
same day i.e. on 22.01.2026 due to law and order
situation and submitted the same before the learned
court below on 24.01.2026 (i.e. on 181 days).”
On a bare perusal of the same, it is seen that
th
admittedly on the 180 day, the charge sheet was not
filed.
16. And, curiously enough, as envisaged under
5
Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act, no steps have been
taken to seek extension.
17. This Court need not burden this order by relying
on a series of precedents to reiterate the settled
principle that, while considering bail, the Court has to
scrutinise as to whether the prosecution has followed the
timeline religiously, without any exception. The
legislature was alive to the peculiar nature of accusation
under the N.D.P.S. Act whereby it has doubled the time
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 8 of 11
period of 90 days to 180 days, giving sufficient time to
the prosecution to conclude the investigation. Even
liberty has been granted to seek extension of time up to
one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating
the progress of the investigation.
The statutory guidelines have been framed to
ensure a balance between the rights of an accused and
the needs of society, particularly in cases involving
accusations under the N.D.P.S. Act.
18. But, in the case at hand, the statutory
5
prescription, as stated in section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S.
Act, has been followed in its complete breach and this
Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that, as per the
mandate, the matter was not even posted before the
th
learned Court in seisin on the 180 day, which indicates
that the Court in seisin has also signally failed in
appreciating the statutory prescription as stated in
5
section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
It is candidly admitted by the concerned IIC
that the charge sheet could not be filed on the appointed
th
180 day, and a plea is taken that the same was due to
the law-and-order situation.
19. Such plea cannot be countenanced in view of
the strict provisions for granting bail in the N.D.P.S. Act
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 9 of 11
9
as per Section 37(1)(B)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and is an
affront to the rights of the accused in custody in terms of
4
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The quantity of
contraband and antecedents pale into insignificance.
20. On a conspectus of materials on record, this
Court is left with no other alternative than to arrive at
the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has
signally failed in its duty to adhere to the timeline as
5
fixed in Section 36-A(4) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on
default bail.
Accordingly, it is directed that he be released on
bail by the learned Court in seisin of the case on such
terms to be fixed by the said Court.
21. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.
22. Registry is requested to send a copy of this
order via electronic mode to the Superintendent of the
9
(1) Notwithstanding
37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[offences under Section 19
or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the court is satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1)
are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 10 of 11
concerned Jail, in addition to the communication through
Order Communication Portal (OCP) of this Court.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 29 October, 2026/Basu
30.10.2026/Uploaded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK
Designation: Addl. Dy. Registrar-cum-Addl. Principal Secy
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 30-Oct-2026 20:33:57
BLAPL No.1999 of 2026 Page 11 of 11