1 2025:CGHC:35821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5309 of 2025 Bhola Nishad S/o. Late Punaram Nishad, Aged About 24 Years R/o. Near Koteshwar Mandir, Kota Saraswati Nagar, P.S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 148/2024, registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that as per the information received from the informant / complainant that the applicant was carrying a sharp-edged steel knife with a button and brandished it at a public place, i.e. in front of Ola Showroom on GE Road, the Police of Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur reached at the spot and seized the knife from the possession of the applicant, which led to the registration of the aforementioned offence against the applicant and subsequently arrested the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the applicant neither brandished the knife nor committed any of the aforementioned offenses as alleged by the prosecution against him. He also submits that looking to the materials available in the record, no prima facie case has been made out against the applicant, further applicant is a young boy and incarceration would adversely affect his future, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 12 criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 31.05.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits 3 that the applicant is alleged to have carried a sharp-edged steel knife with a button and brandished it at a public place, i.e. in front of Ola Showroom on GE Road in violation of the government's circular, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 12 criminal antecedents out of which 06 cases are pending, which shows that he is a habitual offender and as such, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy it prima facie appears that the applicant is alleged to have carried a sharp- edged steel knife with a button and brandished it in a threatening manner in front of the Ola Showroom on GE Road at a public place and thereby violated the government's circular, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 12 criminal antecedents, out of which, 06 cases are pending agaist him, which shows that he is a habitual offender also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Bhola Nishad, involved in Crime No. 148/2024, registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice alfiza / Akhil