1 CGHC010268852026 2026:CGHC:30458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6417 of 2026 Anurag Yadav S/o Panchram Yadav Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Badi Koni Police Station Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 204/2026 registered at Police Station-Koni, District Bilaspur (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 29.04.2026, a secret information was received that a person was standing near Aadhar RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Shila School, Ramatal Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Koni, carrying and brandishing a sharp iron knife on the public road, thereby creating fear and panic amongst the general public. Acting upon the said information, the police party immediately reached the spot and apprehended the applicant. On search, one sharp iron knife having a total length of 13.5 inches, handle length 5.4 inches and blade width 1 inch was recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant. The applicant failed to produce any valid licence or authority for possessing the said weapon. Accordingly, the knife was seized in accordance with law and Crime No.204/2026 was registered against the applicant 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 further submits that no ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are made out against the applicant. He further submits that the police did not conduct a fair and proper enquiry before registering the FIR and the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and baseless. He further submits that no independent eye-witness is available to support the prosecution case and the entire prosecution story is fabricated. He further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 29.04.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been 3 filed before the competent Court. He further submits that, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which one case registered under the IPC has already ended in acquittal, one case under the Arms Act has also resulted in acquittal however, two cases under the Arms Act are still pending, which have duly been explained by the applicant in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant was apprehended from a public place while openly brandishing a sharp iron knife near Aadhar Shila School, Ramatal Road, thereby creating fear and panic amongst the general public. He further submits that one sharp iron knife having a total length of 13.5 inches, handle length 5.4 inches and blade width 1 inch was recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and the applicant failed to produce any valid licence or authority for possessing the said weapon. He further submits that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which two cases under the Arms Act are still pending, whereas one case under the IPC and one case under the Arms Act have resulted in acquittal. Thus, despite the acquittals in two cases, the applicant is involved in repeated offences under the Arms Act and, therefore, he is a habitual offender. Looking to the nature of allegations, the criminal 4 antecedents of the applicant and the material collected during investigation, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the case diary and the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the applicant was apprehended from a public place while openly brandishing a sharp iron knife having a total length of 13.5 inches, handle length 5.4 inches and blade width 1 inch, thereby creating fear and panic amongst the general public. The said weapon has been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and seized in accordance with law. The applicant failed to produce any valid licence or authority for possessing the said weapon. Although learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of the four previous criminal antecedents, one case under the IPC and one case under the Arms Act have resulted in acquittal and the remaining two Arms Act cases are pending, which have been explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the bail application, however, the fact remains that the applicant has repeatedly been found involved in offences of similar nature under the Arms Act and therefore, prima facie, he appears to be a habitual offender further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Anurag Yadav, involved in Crime No. 204/2026 registered at Police Station-Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan