Bail may be granted for Arms Act offences despite criminal antecedents if prior cases are disposed of.

The applicants were arrested on 26.02.2026 following a police interception of their vehicle (a Thar, registration No. CG/10/BW/6664) near Aasma City, Bilaspur, after reports of an accident.

During the search, three accused persons were each found in possession of a knife.

Upon being served notice under Section 94 of the BNSS, they failed to produce valid documentation for the weapons.

Consequently, Crime No. 198/2026 was registered at Police Station Sakri for offenses under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act.

The applicants sought regular bail, noting their period of incarceration and that their previous criminal antecedents (3 for Ishan Singh Mandloi and 4 for Rahul Tiwari) had been disposed of.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering their criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the possession and use of prohibited weapons, and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding driving by a drunken person or under the influence of drugs.

procedural compliance under Sections 94 (summons to produce document), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and 351 (accused's statement) of the BNSS and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations—involving the possession of knives and a vehicular accident—against the procedural status of the case.

Although the State argued for a denial of bail based on the applicants' criminal history (3 and 4 antecedents respectively), the court noted that these previous cases had already been disposed of.

The court reasoned that since the applicants had been in jail since 26.02.2026 and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time to conclude, prolonged pre-trial detention was not warranted.

The court determined that the interests of justice would be served by releasing the applicants subject to stringent conditions to ensure their presence during trial proceedings.

The applicants were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; (iii) personal presence for framing of charges and Section 351 BNSS statements; and (iv) consequences for the misuse of liberty or absconding.