Bail granted under Arms Act considering charge-sheet filing and custody duration despite criminal antecedents.

On October 8, 2025, the G.R.P. Police Station, Raigarh, received information regarding two individuals threatening passengers with sharp iron knives at the Raigarh Railway Yard.

The police apprehended the applicant, Avinash (alias Mithun Chauhan), and another individual, seizing two sharp daggers from their possession.

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Crime No. 15/2025.

The applicant moved for regular bail, asserting innocence, false implication, and his status as the sole breadwinner for his family.

The State opposed the bail, citing the filing of the charge-sheet and the fact that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and his criminal history.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the procedure for regular bail.

The substantive offenses were considered under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court invoked conditions aligned with Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons, and Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding the consequences of non-attendance and the recording of statements.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the progress of the legal proceedings.

It noted that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Although the State highlighted the applicant’s four criminal antecedents as a ground for denial, the Court balanced this against the duration of the applicant’s judicial custody (since late 2025) and the observation that the trial’s conclusion would likely be delayed.

The Court reasoned that under these circumstances, and considering the overall facts, the applicant's continued detention was not warranted, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his cooperation with the trial process and to prevent any abuse of the liberty granted.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court imposed specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must appear on every trial date, and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements.

Failure to comply with these conditions allows the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.