Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27817 (CHH)

VIKASH YADAV @ VIKKY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4563/2026 · 2026-07-19

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010192152026 2026:CGHC:30768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4563 of 2026 Vikash Yadav @ Vikky S/o Ram Gopal Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Pahadi Para Ambedkar Chowk Gudhiyari District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/07/2026 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. 138/2026 registered at Police Station – Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on receiving information that the present applicant was moving in a public place while brandishing a knife and thereby creating fear amongst the public, the police immediately reached the spot, apprehended the applicant, recovered and seized the knife from his possession in accordance KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 with law, and thereafter registered the aforesaid crime against him for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no offence, as alleged, is made out against the applicant and there is no sufficient material available on record to attract the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It is also submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The applicant is in jail since 03.04.2026, no further custodial interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant was apprehended while carrying a knife in a public place and the weapon was recovered and seized from his possession. It is further submitted that on 14.05.2026, this Court had granted time to the learned counsel for the applicant to explain the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are five in number, however, till date, no explanation has been furnished. Therefore, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the documents available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and 3 gravity of the offence and the material available on record and the allegation that the applicant was found carrying a knife in a public place and further considering that the applicant has five criminal antecedents, for which despite sufficient opportunity granted by this Court on 14.05.2026, no explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant 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 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. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Vikas Yadav @ Vikky, involved in Crime No. 138/2026 registered at Police Station – Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal