Bail granted for Arms Act offences where no injury occurred despite applicant’s extensive criminal antecedents.

On January 3, 2026, the applicant was apprehended by Raipur Police following an informant's tip that a man matching the applicant's description was brandishing a knife and threatening passersby near Nehru Nagar Garden Gate

A sharp steel knife was recovered from his possession; the applicant failed to produce valid license documents for the weapon

He was subsequently arrested and charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending false implication and noting that while he has eleven previous criminal cases, only two remain pending

The State opposed the bail, citing his criminal antecedents and the recovery of the weapon

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering his period of incarceration and the nature of the offence

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail

It further considered Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, which prescribe penalties for the possession and use of prohibited arms without a license

The court also referenced Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding penalties for non-attendance and failure to appear in response to a proclamation

The Court evaluated the application by balancing the applicant's criminal history against the specifics of the current offense. It noted that although the applicant has a history of eleven criminal cases, only two are currently pending

Crucially, the Court observed that "no injury has been caused to any person" during the incident in question

Considering that the applicant has been in jail since January 3, 2026, and that the trial is likely to consume significant time, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted

The Court mitigated the risk of the applicant's recidivism or absconding by imposing strict procedural conditions, including the filing of an undertaking against seeking adjournments and mandatory personal presence during key trial stages

The holding is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness evidence [para 7(i)], must appear on every hearing date [para 7(ii)], and must be personally present for the framing of charges and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS [para 7(iv)]. Failure to comply with these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed in accordance with law