Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents where charge-sheet filed and trial likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 237/2026 registered at Police Station Jagdalpur, District Bastar, for offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, police found an unknown person threatening bystanders by displaying a knife near Samund Chowk. The applicant was apprehended at the spot while allegedly attempting to flee

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, five criminal antecedents—only one relating to a similar offence—and prolonged incarceration since 30 May 2026.

The State opposed the application on the basis of the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Whether the applicant’s five criminal antecedents, including one antecedent of a similar nature, outweighed the considerations of filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody and the likelihood of delay in trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged substantive offences were Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, concerning unlawful possession or carrying of arms and use of arms in prohibited circumstances.

In exercising its bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the expected duration of the trial.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicant had threatened members of the public with a knife and had attempted to flee when apprehended.

However, it balanced the gravity of the accusation against the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 30 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the applicant had five criminal antecedents, the Court noted that only one was of a similar nature.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS.

The applicant, Sumit Pandey, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order also authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.