Bail granted to a repeat offender for prohibited arms possession citing completed investigation and prolonged custody.

The applicant, Komal Sahu, was arrested on 24.04.2026 following a police raid in Firangipara, Kota, based on an informer's tip.

He was allegedly brandishing a "Gupti" knife and intimidating the public.

Upon seeing the police, he attempted to flee but was apprehended; a stainless-steel Gupti knife was recovered from his pocket.

Crime No. 309/2026 was registered under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, there were no independent witnesses, and that although he had seven prior criminal antecedents, he had been granted bail in all of them.

The State opposed the application, citing the prohibited nature of the weapon and the applicant's criminal history.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite having seven criminal antecedents.

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

Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the possession and use of prohibited weapons.

Section 269 of the BNSS (pertaining to non-appearance/attendance), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (pertaining to non-appearance in obedience to a proclamation), and Section 351 of the BNSS (recording of accused's statement).

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant since his arrest on 24.04.2026.

The Court noted the applicant's submission that bail had been granted in all previous cases and that the present offences are triable by a Magistrate.

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and further custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, there was no immediate requirement to keep the applicant in judicial custody.

The Court determined that the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions rather than denying liberty.

The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties subject to strict conditions, including an undertaking not to seek adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages, and a warning that default would be treated as an abuse of liberty.