Grant of Bail Under BNSS for Arms Act Offence Despite Criminal Antecedents Following Filing of Charge-Sheet

The applicant was arrested on 08.03.2026 following a police patrol report alleging he was threatening passersby with a knife near Lalkhadan Chowk.

The applicant failed to produce a valid license for the weapon.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated after refusing to pay illegal gratification during a vehicle check.

Procedurally, this is the First Bail Application; the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in custody since the date of the incident.

Two criminal antecedents were noted, though the applicant was acquitted in one.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the offense and the period of incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The substantive charges were under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, which regulate the possession and use of prohibited arms.

The court also referenced Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant, and Sections 84 and 209 of the BNSS/BNS regarding proclamation for person absconding and non-appearance, respectively, as conditions for the bail bond.

The court weighed the gravity of the allegations under the Arms Act against the fact that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet.

Although the State opposed the bail citing two criminal antecedents, the court noted that the applicant had been acquitted in one of those cases.

The court observed that the applicant had been in jail since 08.03.2026 and determined that the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time to reach its conclusion.

Consequently, the court found that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding directed the release of Arjun Yadav upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; (iii) personal presence during framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS; and (iv) strict penalties for non-compliance under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.