1 2025:CGHC:16926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2843 of 2025 Sunil Sonwani S/o Narayan Sonwani Aged About 21 Years R/o Aman Nagar, Avanti Vihar Colony, P.S. Khamardih, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.01.2025, as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur conducted raid and nabbed the applicant, who was in possession of Koyta (Khukhari), thereafter, aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant, subsequently, he was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that there is no seizure of Koyta (Khukhari) has been made from present applicant and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the charge under Section 25 of Arms Act against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2025, the applicant has four criminal antecedents under the IPC and Arms Act, out of which, in one case under the IPC, applicant has already been acquitted, one case under the IPC has already been settled before Lok-Adalat and rest of the two cases are pending against him, out of which, one is under the IPC and one is under the Arms Act, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that applicant was found to be in possession of Koyta (Khukhari), though he has no caused injury to 3 anyone, but it is a dangerous weapon, further applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which, three cases are under the IPC and one case is under the Arms Act, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 28.01.2025, the fact that though the applicant was found to be in possession of Koyta (Khukhari), but he had not caused injury to anyone, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has four criminal antecedents under the IPC and Arms Act, out of which, in one case under the IPC, applicant has already been acquitted, one case under the IPC has already been settled before Lok-Adalat, besides these cases, applicant has only two cases pending against him, which are under the IPC and Arms Act, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant-Sunil Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil