1 CGHC010193802026 2026:CGHC:30062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4567 of 2026 Raj Ratre @ Dhanraj S/o Suresh Chand Ratre Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 1065, Indira Chowk, Ward No. 07, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Abhanpur, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/07/2026 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.40/2026, registered at Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.02.2026, the Sub- Inspector of Police Station Abhanpur received a secret information KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that one Raju Banjare @ Raju Pathan, who was allegedly involved in cases of murder, robbery and assault and had recently been released on bail, was standing near Bajrang Chowk, Abhanpur Basti, brandishing a sharp-edged button-operated knife and creating terror amongst the public. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached the spot, where they found the co-accused openly displaying the knife and intimidating passers-by. On seeing the police, applicant Raj Ratre, who was accompanying him, fled from the spot, whereas co-accused Raju Banjare @ Raju Pathan was apprehended and a button-operated knife was recovered from his possession. As he failed to produce any valid licence or authority for possessing the said weapon, the knife was seized and Crime No.40/2026 was registered against him under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 111 of the BNS. During the course of investigation, the present applicant Raj Ratre, who had absconded from the spot, was arrested on 28.04.2026 on the memorandum statement of the co-accused for his alleged involvement in the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and no overt act has been attributed to him except that he allegedly fled from the spot on seeing the police party. He further submits that neither any weapon was recovered from the applicant nor are the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 111 of the BNS attracted against him. He further submits that the applicant has been in custody since 28.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, no further custodial interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum statement however, the said weapon has been seized from the possession of the co-accused not from the applicant. 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 applicant was accompanying the co-accused at the time of the incident and fled from the spot immediately on seeing the police party, which clearly indicates his involvement in the unlawful activities of the co-accused. She submits that the co-accused was found carrying a prohibited button-operated knife and was openly creating fear amongst the public, and the present applicant was acting in concert with him, attracting the provisions of Section 111 of the BNS. She further submits that sufficient material has been collected during investigation to establish the applicant's complicity in the alleged offence. Therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and the material available on record and the fact that no weapon or other incriminating article 4 has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and the only allegation against him is that he has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, whereas the prohibited button-operated knife was recovered exclusively from the possession of the co-accused, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 28.04.2026, the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, no further custodial interrogation is required 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Raj Ratre @ Dhanraj, involved in Crime No.40/2026, registered at Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 5 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 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