1 CGHC010257532026 2026:CGHC:29673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6276 of 2026 Karan Sarkar S/o Late Shri Raju Sarkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Baba General Store, Kali, Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Subham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 111/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.14 16:16:32 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2026, the Police Authority of Civil lines Police Station while patrolling received a tip that in the Nearby Gali of Kanker Office situated at Raipur a named Karan Sarkar who is threatening the common public, with a sharp iron knife in his hand, that as soon as the information is received the authorities reached the spot and caught the present applicant and from him one knife was seized and of which he does not possessed any license therefore, the applicant was arrested on 22.02.2026. That the sole accused person was arrested and after completion of investigation the police authorities have filed charge-sheet for the offence under section 25, 27 of Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no cogent material has been collected to connect him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant was apprehended merely on suspicion while he was passing through the area and had no knowledge of the knife allegedly recovered, which does not belong to him. Learned counsel contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that the knife was recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and that there is no direct evidence to attract the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that one of the prosecution witnesses has admitted that he merely signed the documents prepared by the police and did not personally witness the alleged recovery of the knife from the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity at the instance of the police informant. It is further submitted that the applicant has two pending criminal cases and has been 3 acquitted in one case. The applicant belongs to a poor family, is the sole earning member, and his aged mother is suffering from old-age ailments and is dependent upon him for her care and medical treatment. It is lastly submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained in jail since 22.02.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Karan Sarkar, involved in Crime No. 111/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 4 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 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. 8. 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