1 2026:CGHC:25167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5358 of 2026 Yogesh Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 22 Years Occupation Labourer, R/o Village Tekari, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Arang, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Presently Lodged In District Jail, Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 97/2026 registered at Police Station Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. According to the prosecution case, the police received information KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that a person was standing near Aman Dhaba, Bhoring Chowk, Tumgaon, wielding a knife and threatening passersby. Acting on the said information, the police reached the spot, apprehended the applicant, and allegedly recovered and seized an iron knife measuring 11 inches in total length from his possession. Thereafter, arrested the applicant and aforementioned offences have been registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged recovery is only of an ordinary iron knife and there is no material on record to demonstrate that the said knife falls within the category of prohibited arms so as to attract the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is further submitted that no independent witness has supported the alleged seizure and the entire prosecution case is based upon the statements of police personnel. Learned counsel further submits that no person has sustained any injury and no substantive offence involving hurt or use of force has been alleged against the applicant. He submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.04.2026. It is also submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents out of which one case is of Excise Act, one case of Arms Act and one case is under the BNS as the same has been explained in the bail application and the trial is likely to take 3 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 prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant was found wielding a knife and threatening passersby. He further submits that the knife was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He also points out that the applicant has three criminal antecedents. Out of the said cases, one case registered under the Excise Act has already been settled in the Lok Adalat, one case registered under the Arms Act is pending wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail and another case registered under the BNS is still pending trial, as reflected in Part-D of the bail application relating to criminal antecedents. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and considering his criminal history, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the alleged recovery is of an ordinary iron knife, the absence of any allegation regarding assault or causing injury to any person, the fact that no independent witness has supported the alleged seizure, the period of detention undergone by the applicant since 21.04.2026, and further considering that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed and therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. This Court has 4 also taken into consideration the criminal antecedents of the applicant as explained in Part-D of the bail application, wherein one case registered under the Excise Act has already been settled in Lok Adalat, one case registered under the Arms Act is pending in which the applicant has been granted bail and another case under the BNS is pending trial. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Yogesh Sahu, involved in Crime No. 97/2026 registered at Police Station Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of BNS. 5 (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 BNS. (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. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal