1 CGHC010265002026 2026:CGHC:30173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6336 of 2026 Anand @ Bhurwa S/o Shri Hemkumar Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Patwapara Mungeli P.S. And District- Mungeli, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S H O, City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G. ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.04.2026, while on patrolling duty, Head Constable Chandra Kumar Dhruv of Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli received a secret information that two KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 persons were roaming near Nandi Chowk, Shankar Mandir, Malhapara, carrying swords illegally, brandishing the same and creating fear amongst the general public. Acting upon the said information, the police party, after complying with the necessary formalities and associating independent witnesses, reached the spot and apprehended two persons who were allegedly waving swords in public. On inquiry, they disclosed their names as Sunil Jaiswal and the present applicant Anand Yadav @ Bhuruwa. They were asked to produce any valid licence or document authorizing possession of the said weapons, but they failed to do so. Consequently, one iron sword having a wooden handle was seized from the possession of the present applicant and another iron sword having a brass handle was seized from the possession of co- accused Sunil Jaiswal. Thereafter, Crime No.124/2026 was registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the material collected during investigation is not sufficient to prima facie establish the alleged offences against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 04.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and no further custodial interrogation is required. He also submits that though the applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are under the BNS and are 3 pending, one case under the IPC has already been compromised and one case under the NDPS Act of the year 2024 is pending, all the antecedents have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present applicant was apprehended on the spot while illegally possessing and brandishing a sword in a public place, thereby creating fear and panic amongst the public. She further submits that one sword has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the allegations are duly supported by the seizure memo and other material collected during investigation. She also submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, including one case under the NDPS Act, though the same have been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, looking to the nature of the allegations and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail application with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the alleged weapon has already been seized, the applicant is in custody since 04.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and no further custodial interrogation is required, coupled with the fact that though the applicant has four criminal 4 antecedents, the same have been explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Anand @ Bhurwa, involved in Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences 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 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 5 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 concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal