1 CGHC010286082026 2026:CGHC:32704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6849 of 2026 Saurabh Soni S/o Naerendra Soni Aged About 26 Years R/o Amatalab Road Dhamtari, Tehsil. And District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Offifer, P.S. Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G. ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/07/2026 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. 84/2026, registered at Police Station- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.03.2026, Head Constable Ravi Jagne of Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 while on patrolling and crime detection duty along with the police staff, received secret information through an informer that the applicant was roaming near Maradev Temple, Gaurav Path, Dhamtari, carrying one country-made pistol and 11 live cartridges. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached the spot where the applicant, on noticing the police, allegedly attempted to conceal himself. He was apprehended and upon search, one black coloured country-made pistol and 11 live cartridges were allegedly recovered from his possession. Thereafter, a notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was served upon the applicant requiring him to produce a valid licence or authorization for possession of the said firearm and ammunition, however, he failed to produce any such document. Consequently, the aforesaid firearm and live cartridges were seized, an offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the applicant and after completion of investigation, the 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 the applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.03.2026 and the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the alleged seizure has not been effected from the conscious possession of the applicant and he has been falsely implicated after his return upon completion of the externment period. Learned counsel further submits that though the applicant has 14 3 criminal antecedents, the same have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application. Out of the said cases, 08 cases have resulted in acquittal, 03 cases have been disposed of on the basis of compromise, 02 criminal cases are still pending and in one proceeding, an externment order was passed by the District Magistrate vide order dated 15.05.2025, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.08.2025 in Appeal No. 107/Home-C/2025 F-4 and thereafter upheld by this Court in WPCR No.155/2026 vide order dated 23.03.2026, though the period of externment was reduced from one year to ten months. He submits that merely because the applicant has criminal antecedents, the same cannot be the sole ground to deny him the benefit of bail. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant was found in conscious possession of one country-made pistol and 11 live cartridges without possessing any valid licence or authorization. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender having 14 criminal antecedents, as explained in the bail application itself, out of which 08 cases have ended in acquittal, 03 cases have been compromised, 02 criminal cases of similar nature are still pending, besides the externment proceedings initiated against him. Looking to the gravity of the offence, the recovery effected from the applicant and his criminal background, no indulgence deserves to be shown and the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the recovery of one country-made pistol and 11 live cartridges from his possession, the fact that the applicant failed to produce any valid licence or authorization despite being served with notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and further considering that the applicant has an extensive criminal history comprising 14 criminal antecedents, out of which 02 criminal cases are still pending, while 08 cases have resulted in acquittal and 03 cases have been compromised, besides the fact that the applicant had earlier been externed by the competent authority and the said externment order was upheld up to this Court (with modification only to the extent of reducing the period from one year to ten months), this Court is of the considered opinion that the criminal antecedents of the applicant cannot be ignored while considering his prayer for bail, prima facie indicates that the applicant is 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 5 applicant – Saurabh Soni, involved in Crime No. 84/2026, registered at Police Station- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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