Lack of injury and charge-sheet filing justify bail under Arms Act despite existing criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on February 18, 2026, following a police report that he was brandishing a sharp-edged iron knife and threatening passersby at Bajrang Chowk, Talapara

An FIR (Crime No. 254/2026) was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, for offenses under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated and had not caused injury to anyone

The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s three criminal antecedents from 2021, 2022, and 2023, which include offenses under the IPC and the Arms Act

A charge-sheet has since been filed in the matter

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering his criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides for the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were governed by Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

the Court incorporated procedural safeguards referencing Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance and Section 209 of the BNS (corresponding to non-appearance following a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS) to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the period of the applicant's detention and the progress of the legal proceedings.

It noted that while the applicant was allegedly brandishing a weapon, there were no allegations of actual physical injury caused to any individual

Despite the State’s emphasis on the applicant’s three prior criminal records, the Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since February 18, 2026, and that the investigation was complete with the filing of the charge-sheet

Reasoning that the trial would likely consume significant time, the Court concluded that the applicant met the threshold for bail, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to prevent the abuse of liberty and to ensure his presence at trial

It directed the release of the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments during the evidence stage; (ii) mandatory presence on all fixed dates; and (iii) a warning that default or misuse of bail would trigger proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS

The trial court was authorized to treat any breach of these conditions as an abuse of liberty