1 2026:CGHC:21679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4333 of 2026 Shubham Durga S/o Govind Durga Aged About 34 Years R/o Maa Kali Nagar, Near Waltair Line P.S. Devendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.202 6 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 63/2026 registered at Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 06.03.2026, while the police personnel were on town patrol duty, they received information from an informant that a boy matching the description RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 provided was standing at the spot carrying a knife in his hand. Acting upon the said information, the police immediately reached the spot and found the accused in possession of a knife. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended and the knife was seized from his possession in accordance with law. Since the alleged act was found to constitute offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the accused was brought to the Police Station along with the seized article and a case was registered against him at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) vide Crime No. 63/2026 under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court, therefore no further custodial interrogation or recovery is required from the applicant. He further submits that the offences alleged against the applicant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and considering the nature of allegations as well as the maximum sentence prescribed under the said provisions, prolonged pre-trial detention of the applicant is not warranted. It is also submitted that though the alleged incident is said to have taken place at a public place during daytime, no independent witness from the locality was 3 made a witness to the alleged seizure and the entire prosecution case rests solely upon the testimony of police ofÏcials, therefore the alleged recovery itself becomes doubtful and is a matter to be tested during trial. He further submits that there is no allegation against the applicant that he used the alleged weapon for causing injury to any person or for commission of any other offence and the present case is merely based on alleged possession of the weapon. He also submits that the present applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2022 and 2024 which are pending. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 06.03.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed 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 present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant was found in conscious possession of a knife at a public place and the weapon has been duly seized from his possession. She also submits that the present applicant has two previous criminal antecedents which are pending, shows that he is a habitual offender. It is further submitted that looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 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 4 that though the applicant was found in conscious possession of a knife at a public place and the weapon has been duly seized from his possession, and has two previous criminal antecedents, but criminal antecedents are explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application, and further the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 06.03.2026, 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Shubham Durga, involved in Crime No. 63/2026 registered at Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence 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 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 5 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, 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan