1 CGHC010212272026 2026:CGHC:29124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4959 of 2026 Rupesh @ Monu Gendre S/o Ghanshyam Gendre, Aged About 32 Years R/o Nandai, Kuwa Chowk Satnami Para, Police Station- Basantpur, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station- Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2026 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. 171/2026 registered at Police Station 2 Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.04.2026, while on crime investigation duty, the police received secret information that the applicant was standing at Satnami Para, Nandai, Basantpur, allegedly threatening passers-by with a sharp steel button knife. Acting on the information, the police reached the spot, apprehended the applicant, and allegedly recovered a steel button knife from his possession. As the applicant failed to produce any valid licence or document authorising possession of the weapon, he was arrested. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent trial Court. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant pertain only to the alleged possession of a weapon punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and do not involve any allegation of physical assault, use of the weapon for causing injury, or commission of any violent offence against any person. In the absence of any bodily harm, overt act of violence, or misuse of the alleged weapon, continued incarceration of the applicant would be unjustified and contrary to the settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The applicant 3 is in jail since 15.04.2026, the applicant has six criminal antecedents, out of which, in three cases, applicant has already been acquitted of the charges, in one case under the Excise Act, the applicant has been convicted and fined and rest of the two are pending, further 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 bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant was allegedly found in possession of a steel button knife and was allegedly threatening passers-by with the said weapon. As he failed to produce any valid licence or authority for possessing the knife, the weapon was seized from his possession, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has six criminal antecedents of the years 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023,2024 and 2025 under the IPC, Excise Act and the Arms Act, therefore, 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 15.04.2026, the fact that though the applicant was allegedly was found in possession of a steel button knife and was 4 threatening passers-by with it, whereupon the weapon was seized from his possession, but considering the fact that the applicant has not caused any injury to any person, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant which are six in number, out of which, out of which, in three cases, applicant has already been acquitted of the charges, in one case under the Excise Act, the applicant has been convicted and fined and rest of the two are pending and the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Rupesh @ Monu Gendre, involved in Crime No. 171/2026 registered at Police Station Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the 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 5 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, 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil