1 2025:CGHC:57809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9630 of 2025 Shankar Dhritlahare S/o Lt. Santu Dhritlahare Aged About 22 Years R/o Satnam Chowk, P.S.- Urla, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Urla, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This is the 2rst bail application 2led 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. 307/2025 registered at Police Station- Urla, District : Raipur, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.09.2025, the police of Police Station Urla received secret information that the applicant was allegedly carrying a sharp sword near a wine shop at Urla and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was threatening passersby with it, upon which the police arrested the applicant and registered the FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o:ence and he has been falsely implicated in o:ence in question. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the IPC, which are pending, explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.09.2025, charge- sheet has been 2led 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 appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been 2led in the present case. She further submits that the applicant was allegedly found carrying a sharp sword in public near a wine shop at Urla and threatening passersby, which constitutes a serious o:ence. She further submits that the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedent under the IPC which shows that he is a habitual o:ender, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicant was allegedly found carrying a sharp sword in public near a wine shop at Urla and threatening passersby 3 and has 04 criminal antecedents under the IPC which are pending, but criminal antecedents are explained in the paragraph 4(a) of the bail application and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 12.09.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Shankar Dhritlahare, involved in Crime No. 307/2025 registered at Police Station- Urla, District : Raipur, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 2le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 2xed 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 2xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suCcient 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, 4 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 2xed 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 2xed 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 suCcient 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. 8. OCce is directed to provide a certi2ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan