1 2025:CGHC:49881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6102 of 2025 Neelkanth Sahu S/o Shri Mayaram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhothidih, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, Presently Residing At House No. 53, Sai Nagar, Police Station- Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station- Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 239/2025 registered at Police Station – Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 28.06.2025, Police Station Abhanpur received information from a reliable informer that a person was VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.10.08 12:58:29 +0530 2 threatening members of the public with a pistol in his hand near Kathiya Mod, Hiralal College, Abhanpur. Acting on this information, a patrolling team comprising Constables Mulayam Singh Kunjam (No. 2541) and Dinesh Upadhyay (No.2042), along with independent witnesses Sanjaydas Manikpuri and Ranjeet Netam, proceeded to the spot after recording the information in the panchnama and issuing notices under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Upon reaching the location, they found a person matching the informer’s description openly brandishing a pistol and causing panic among the public. The police immediately apprehended the individual, who identified himself as Neelkanth Sahu, S/o Mayaram Sahu, aged 36 years, resident of Village Bhothidih, Police Station Gobara Navapara, presently residing at House No. 53, Sai Nagar, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.). On being asked to produce legal documents for the pistol, the accused failed to furnish any license or permit. Consequently, in the presence of independent witnesses, the pistol was seized from his possession, and a notice under Section 94 BNSS was served. Considering the gravity of the offence, a case under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered. The accused was informed of the grounds of his arrest, formally arrested the same day, and his family was duly notified. A site map of the place of occurrence was prepared, and the seized weapon was sent for expert examination to the Armory Protected Center, Raipur, where it was certified to be a 7.65 mm bore pistol in proper working condition, capable of causing serious injury or death if fired. However, no ammunition or magazine was recovered from his possession. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he is innocent and has been 3 falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled in the FIR are solely based on informer information and lack any independent or corroborative evidence to substantiate the charges of intimidation or unlawful possession of arms. The applicant has not committed any offence and is not involved in any illegal activity, nor is there any direct evidence or witness testimony connecting him to the alleged act. The weapon allegedly recovered from the applicant was an iron pistol bearing the inscription “Automatic Pistol Made in USA 43359,” without any magazine or ammunition, and no incident of firing or harm to any person or property has been reported. Moreover, there were no independent witnesses to confirm the informer’s claim that the applicant was threatening the public, rendering the accusation baseless. Although the Armory Report states that the weapon was a 7.65 mm bore pistol in working condition, the absence of any live cartridges or magazine clearly indicates that there was no immediate threat or intention to use the weapon. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the applicant’s previous bail application dated 24.07.2025, did so in a routine and mechanical manner without properly considering these facts or the settled principles of law. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.06.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. He has no prior criminal antecedents, is a law-abiding citizen, and there is no likelihood of his absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued detention is causing severe hardship to his dependents. Being a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, the applicant undertakes to comply with all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this 4 Hon’ble Court, therefore, prays to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, he submits that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular 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, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the present applicant, moreover, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 28.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Neelkanth Sahu , involved in Crime No. 239/2025 registered at Police Station – Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (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 sufficient 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, 5 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav