The Orissa High Court has mandated the release of an accused on default bail after the prosecution failed to file a charge sheet within the mandatory 180-day window prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Justice V. Narasingh, presiding over the petition filed by Biswa Ranjan Routray, underscored that the procedural failure on the part of the state to meet investigative timelines constitutes a significant breach of the legal protections afforded to individuals in custody. By failing to submit the documentation within the stipulated time or seeking a formal extension from the special court, the prosecution effectively forfeited its right to further oppose the bail application.

The petitioner, Biswa Ranjan Routray, had been held in custody since his arrest on July 28, 2025, following a case registered at the Khordha Industrial Estate Police Station for his alleged possession of 320 grams of brown sugar. Under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the standard investigation timeline is extended to 180 days, compared to the 90-day period typical of other criminal cases. However, this extended window necessitates strict adherence. In the present case, the 180-day limit expired on January 23, 2026. While the prosecution had prepared a charge sheet dated January 22, 2026, the document was not submitted to the court until January 24, 2026, marking the 181st day of the petitioner's incarceration.

During the proceedings, the defense argued that the petitioner’s continued detention without a timely filed charge sheet or an authorized extension violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner maintained that his right to be released on default bail had matured upon the completion of the 180th day without any formal extension request having been moved by the investigating agency.

The state argued that the delay in filing the charge sheet resulted from a law-and-order situation that prevented the investigating officer from approaching the court on the 180th day. However, the High Court found this justification insufficient to override the mandatory requirements of the law. Justice Narasingh observed that the legislative intent behind Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was to balance the gravity of drug-related offences with the personal liberty of the accused. By doubling the investigation period, the legislature provided the prosecution with ample time to complete its inquiries; failing to act within this generous timeframe reflects a significant procedural shortcoming.

In his critique of the lower court’s handling of the matter, Justice Narasingh noted, “The statutory 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 learned Court in seisin on the 180th day, which indicates that the Court in seisin has also signally failed in appreciating the statutory prescription.”

The court further addressed the state’s contention that the current bail application was redundant because a previous request for default bail had been rejected by the trial court on January 27, 2026 , and remained unchallenged. The High Court rejected this technical argument, stating that dismissing the current petition on the basis of a procedural oversight would be an injustice. Regarding the state’s plea of mitigating circumstances , the court remarked that such arguments "cannot be countenanced in view of the strict provisions for granting bail in the N.D.P.S. Act 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."

The judgment clarified that the quantity of contraband involved and the nature of the accusations are secondary when the state fails to adhere to fundamental procedural timelines established to prevent indefinite incarceration. The court stated, “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.”

Concluding that the prosecution had “signally failed” in its duty to comply with Section 36-A(4), the High Court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner. The court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail under terms and conditions to be determined by the special judge presiding over the trial. To ensure the order is executed without further delay, the High Court’s registry has been instructed to transmit the decision to the jail authorities electronically, bypassing potential procedural hurdles. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance that investigative agencies must maintain rigorous discipline in timeline management, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense or external challenges, to uphold the integrity of the constitutional right to a fair and timely process.