Unexplained delay bars a discharge application under Section 250(1) BNSS.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 13 August 2026 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, in CT Case No. 71 of 2026, whereby the petitioner’s request to invoke Section 250(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was declined on the ground that the discharge application had been filed beyond the statutory period of sixty days.

The case was committed to the Court of Session on 2 February 2026. The petitioner was directed to appear on 26 February 2026 but did not appear, and the matter was adjourned to 7 July 2026. Although the petitioner advanced the record on 26 May 2026 to regularise his appearance, no discharge application was filed then. The application was ultimately filed on 13 July 2026.

The petitioner contended that the delay was not attributable to him and that police papers had not been supplied.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his discharge application considered under Section 250(1) of the BNSS despite filing it beyond sixty days from the date of commitment.

2. Whether the alleged non-supply of police papers or the petitioner’s absence on the first date fixed for appearance justified the delay in filing the discharge application.

3. Whether the order refusing to entertain the delayed discharge application warranted interference in criminal revision.

Section 250(1) of the BNSS permits an accused to file an application for discharge within sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under Section 232 of the BNSS.

Section 232 requires the Magistrate, after compliance with the applicable committal procedure, to commit the case to the Court of Session, while Section 231 concerns the supply of police papers to the accused before commitment.

The Court applied the principle that a delay attributable to the accused, without a satisfactory explanation, does not justify consideration of a discharge application filed beyond the statutory period.

The decision in Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, MANU/GJ/1443/2026, was distinguished because the delay in that case had been satisfactorily explained, unlike in the present case.

The Court held that the sixty-day period commenced from the date of commitment, namely 2 February 2026.

The petitioner did not appear on the first date fixed before the Sessions Court, did not file a discharge application when he advanced the record on 26 May 2026, and filed the application only on 13 July 2026. These circumstances demonstrated that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and not to any lapse by the Sessions Court.

The plea of non-supply of police papers was found unconvincing because the statutory committal procedure required compliance with Section 231 before commitment, and the petitioner had not complained of non-supply before the committing Court.

Consequently, the Court found no procedural latches or legal error warranting interference.

The challenge to the order dated 13 August 2026 was therefore rejected. The criminal revision was dismissed as premature and not maintainable.