Sixty-day limit for discharge applications under Section 250 BNSS does not extinguish substantive right to seek discharge.

The applicants, associated with Khyati Hospital, were accused of conspiring to obtain pecuniary advantages under the PM-JAY scheme by inducing patients to undergo unnecessary medical procedures, resulting in two deaths

An FIR was registered under Sections 105, 110, 336, 340, 318, and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Following the charge-sheet and committal under Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicants filed discharge applications under Section 250 of the BNSS

The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, rejected these applications primarily because they were filed beyond the 60-day statutory period prescribed under Section 250(1)

The applicants challenged these orders, contending that the delay should have been condoned as it was caused by the late supply of relevant documents by the prosecution

The Court applied Section 250 of the BNSS, which stipulates a 60-day window for discharge applications from the date of commitment

It relied on the principle from *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji* that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities in delay condonation

The Court referred to *N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy*, establishing that "sufficient cause" and *bona fides* are more important than the length of delay

Additionally, the Court cited *Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector*, which prohibits examining the merits of a case during a delay condonation hearing

The Court cited *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi*, regarding the accused’s right to documents for a meaningful discharge plea

The High Court reasoned that while Section 250(1) of the BNSS introduces a time limit to ensure expeditious trials, it does not extinguish the substantive right to seek discharge, which is linked to the right to a fair trial under Article 21

The Court found that the 60-day period is a procedural "trigger mechanism" and does exclude judicial discretion to condone delay when sufficient cause is shown, especially when delay is not attributable to the accused

In this case, the fact that the prosecution supplied additional documents only during the discharge hearing supported the applicants' claim for condonable delay

The Court further observed that the Sessions Judge committed a legal error by evaluating the merits of the prosecution's case—an impermissible exercise at the stage of deciding condonation of delay

The Court held that the 60-day period under Section 250(1) of the BNSS regulates procedure but does not extinguish the underlying right to seek discharge or the Court's power to condone delay

The trial Court was directed to decide the discharge applications afresh on their merits after ensuring all relied-upon documents are furnished to the accused

Rule made absolute