Bail granted after charge-sheet filing despite criminal antecedents, including one pending case.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 384/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 20 June 2026, the applicant was threatening and intimidating members of the public near Jawali Nala, Bilaspur, while holding a knife, which was allegedly seized from his possession in the presence of witnesses.

Investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant had remained in custody since 20 June 2026 and disclosed two criminal antecedents, one of which had resulted in acquittal while the other was pending.

The State opposed bail primarily on the basis of the alleged knife recovery and the applicant’s similar criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and his criminal antecedents.

Whether completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s period of custody justified release on bail subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail, and considered the allegations under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The governing bail principles required consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the available material including the alleged recovery, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the stage of investigation, and the period of custody.

The Court also imposed statutory and procedural safeguards concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail under the applicable provisions of the BNSS and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged recovery of the knife, and the applicant’s two criminal antecedents, including one similar pending case.

Nevertheless, it found that the applicant had disclosed his antecedents, had already been acquitted in one case, and had remained in custody since 20 June 2026.

Since the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, further custodial detention was not considered necessary at that stage.

Balancing these factors against the nature of the allegations, the Court concluded that the applicant could be released on bail subject to stringent conditions securing his presence and preventing abuse of the concession.

The applicant was required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply, absence without sufficient cause, or misuse of bail could result in proceedings under the applicable provisions of law.