1 CGHC010353932026 2026:CGHC:42528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8887 of 2026 1 - Vikas Goswami S/o Shri Prej Goswami Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Khalbara, Gudhiyari , Police Station Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.324/2026, registered by the Police Station, Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.08.2026, Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Prasad Sen, along with the police staff of Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, allegedly received confidential information that a person was carrying a knife at CSEB Ground, 2 Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.). Acting upon the said information, the police team cordoned off the spot, intercepted the applicant, and allegedly recovered one button-operated spring knife ( बटनदार चाकू ) from his possession. As the applicant failed to produce any valid document or licence in respect of the said knife, he was taken into custody. Consequently, Crime No. 324/2026 was registered against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and he was arrested on 09.08.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has 6 criminal antecedents of a similar nature, out of which two cases have already been disposed of. He also submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 09.08.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that, in the present case, the charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has six criminal antecedents, out of which three cases are under the IPC, two cases are under the Arms Act, and one case is under the Excise Act, which indicates his involvement in multiple criminal cases. Hence, he submits that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the applicant has six criminal antecedents under the IPC, Arms Act and Excise Act, and that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Jyoti