1 CGHC010302252026 2026:CGHC:34510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7152 of 2026 Suyash Urf Chhotu Baghel S/o Vishnu Prasad Baghel Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhunda, Police Station Kota District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led 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. 0426/2026 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the o<ences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 01.06.2026, acting upon a secret information received by the police, it was alleged that the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 present applicant was standing near Bhunda Tiraha Bypass, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kota, while carrying an iron sharp- edged sword-like weapon measuring about 46 cm in length and was allegedly threatening passers-by and creating terror in the locality. On the basis of the said information, the police reached the spot, recovered the aforesaid weapon from the possession of the applicant and registered the present o<ence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been 8led 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 present prosecution is a result of previous enmity between the applicant and one Rajesh Yadav, who was carrying on business with the applicant. It is submitted that when disputes arose between them, the applicant intended to lodge a complaint against Rajesh Yadav, however, instead of taking action on his complaint, a false case was registered against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant's mother has also submitted complaints before the Superintendent of Police as well as the State Human Rights Commission regarding the false implication of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has already been 8led and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. He also submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, as explained in Part-D of the bail application, out of which the status of two criminal cases is not available, whereas one criminal case is still pending and the same have been duly 3 explained by the applicant. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He submits that though the case diary is not available before this Court but as per the FIR and the prosecution case, the allegation against the present applicant is that he was found in possession of an iron sharp-edged sword-like weapon and was allegedly threatening the passers-by and creating public disorder near Bhunda Tiraha Bypass, thereby attracting the o<ences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which one criminal case is still pending while the status of the remaining two cases is not available as such, he is a habitual o<ender and therefore, looking to his antecedents, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the charge-sheet has already been 8led before the competent Court, the applicant is in judicial custody since 01.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Further considering that, although the applicant has three criminal antecedents, as explained by the learned counsel for the applicant in Part-D of the bail application, out of which the status of two criminal cases is not available and one criminal case is stated to be pending, the same have been duly explained by the 4 applicant. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant in the present case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Suyash Urf Chhotu Baghel, involved in Crime No. 0426/2026 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the o<ences 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 8le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed 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 8xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suBcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, 5 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 8xed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates 8xed 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 suBcient 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. OBce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal