BAIL REJECTED DUE TO UNEXPLAINED CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS, CITING SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT.

The applicant, Akash Yadav, filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1252/2025 at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution's case was that the complainant informed the police that the applicant was openly brandishing a knife, leading to the seizure of the knife and registration of a case against him.

The State Counsel informed the court that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had four criminal antecedents.

Despite being granted time on February 5, 2026, to explain these antecedents, the applicant's counsel stated an inability to do so due to a lack of instructions from local counsel.

1. Whether the applicant, given the nature of the allegations and existing criminal antecedents, should be granted regular bail.

The court primarily considered Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for the offence committed.

It applied general principles regarding the grant of bail, particularly considering the nature of the allegations and criminal antecedents of the accused.

The court also relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh Another*, (2022) 8 SCC 559, which emphasized that previous criminal antecedents could be a ground for cancelling or denying bail.

The court heard the arguments from both parties and reviewed the case diary.

The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was innocent, falsely implicated, and that no prima facie case under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was made out against him.

The counsel also stated that the applicant was in judicial custody, and prolonged incarceration would adversely affect his future, expressing willingness to abide by bail conditions.

However, the State Counsel highlighted that the charge-sheet had been filed and critically pointed out the applicant's four criminal antecedents.

The court noted that despite being given time to explain these antecedents, the applicant's counsel failed to do so.

Considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant's four criminal antecedents, classifying him as a habitual offender, and relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Deepak Yadav* (2022) 8 SCC 559, where previous antecedents led to bail cancellation, the court found it not a fit case to grant regular bail.

It concluded that considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant's four criminal antecedents (indicating a habitual offender status), and the precedent of *Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh Another*, the applicant should not be enlarged on regular bail.

The office was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for necessary information.