1 2025:CGHC:61365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9119 of 2025 Suraj Tandiya @ Elan S/o Shri Narendra Randia Aged About 22 Years R/o Jagriti Nagar, Beergaon, P.S. Urla, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Urla, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.12.2025 1. The matter has been called in the revised list and none appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application when the case is called out. 2. It transpires from the record that the applicant is in jail since 28.08.2025. Hence, the Court proceeds to consider and hear the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 bail application of the applicant with the assistance of the State counsel. 3. 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.273/2025, registered at Police Station Urla, Distt. Raipur (C.G), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.08.2025, during town patrol, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Urla received secret information that a person near Achholi Shamshan Ghat was openly brandishing a button-operated steel knife and threatening passers-by, thereby creating fear among the general public. Acting upon the information, the police reached the spot and apprehended the said person, who disclosed his name as Suraj Tandiya alias Allen. Upon being served notice, the accused failed to produce any valid license or authority for possession of the knife, following which the weapon was seized in the presence of witnesses. Consequently, the accused was arrested and a case under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against him. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 24.10.2025. The prosecution further alleges that the accused has a long criminal antecedent involving several serious offences registered between the years 2019 and 2025. Hence, the bail 3 application. 5. The learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has thirteen criminal antecedents, out of which, three are under the Arms Act, the said criminal antecedents of the applicant goes to show that the applicant is a habitual offencer, and his bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have perused the case diary and materials appended with the bail application. 7. From a perusal of the order dated 13.11.2025, it is evident that this Court had granted time to the applicant to file an additional affidavit explaining the status of his criminal antecedents, which are stated to be thirteen in number, including three cases under the Arms Act. Despite the said opportunity, no additional affidavit has been filed till date explaining the nature and status of the aforesaid criminal cases. In view of the non-compliance with the directions of this Court and considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which goes to show that the applicant is a habitual offender and misused the bail granted to him earlier, and 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 4 bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant-Suraj Tandiya @ Elan, involved in Crime No.273/2025, registered at Police Station Urla, Distt. Raipur (C.G), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil