1 2025:CGHC:53921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8737 of 2025 Ritesh Verma @ Tobbo S/o Parmanand Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Prabhat Chowk, Chingrajpara, Bilaspur, P.S. - Sarkanada, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, P.S. - Sarkanda, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 935/2025, registered at Police Station - Sarkanda District – Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 12:04:50 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story the applicant is alleged of scaring the passerby by swinging knife in the air at Ganesh Chowk at Chingrajpara. On 05/07/2025 while patrolling head constable Rajeshwar Singh Kshatri, P.S. Sarkanda received information that the applicant is scaring passerby by swinging knife in the air at Ganesh Chowk, Chingrajpara, based on information raid was conducted by laying siege and when notice was issued he failed to produce any document regarding knife, thereafter he was arrested and knife was seized. 3. The applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there has been absolutely no seizure of any knife from his possession. The applicant has not threatened or scared any person and was arrested merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the applicant. The applicant has never been of a threatening nature, and there is no likelihood of his tampering with prosecution witnesses if released on bail by this Hon’ble Court. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.07.2025, and as the disposal of the case is likely to take considerable time, it is not desirable to keep him languishing in jail for an indefinite period. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, having strong roots in society, and there is no 3 possibility of his absconding or fleeing from justice. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and undertakes to abide by all such directions and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It has further been submitted that the applicant has four following criminal cases registered against him: Crime No. 223/2023 under Sections 457, 380, and 34 of the IPC, which is pending for evidence; Crime No. 226/2023 under Sections 379 and 34 of the IPC, which is pending for charge; Crime No. 630/2024 under Sections 364, 294, 323, and 34 of the IPC, which is pending for evidence; and Crime No. 399/2025 under Sections 296, 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), which are pending, the learned State Counsel contends that the pendency of the aforesaid cases clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender and, therefore, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that four cases are pending against 4 the applicant as mentioned above, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ritesh Verma @ Tobbo, involved in Crime No. 935/2025, registered at Police Station - Sarkanda District – Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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