Regular bail granted despite one criminal antecedent where custody was prolonged and trial was likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 155/2026 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur, for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to information received during police patrolling on 7 June 2026, a raid was conducted near Shiv Temple, Bada Talab, Mowa, Raipur, and an iron knife was seized from the applicant in the presence of witnesses.

The applicant claimed false implication and denied that any weapon had been seized from his possession.

He had remained in custody since 7 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail, pointing out that the applicant had one criminal antecedent.

This was the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while facing prosecution under Section 25 of the Arms Act?

2. Whether the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in concluding the trial justified release on bail despite the State’s objection regarding his criminal antecedent?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the allegation under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Court assessed the usual bail considerations, including the nature of the accusation, the period of incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the probable duration of the trial.

The bail order was made subject to statutory and procedural safeguards, including the applicant’s attendance, restrictions on seeking adjournments, personal appearance at key stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail under the provisions referred to in the order—Sections 269, 351 and 84 of the BNSS and Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Court did not decide the applicant’s defence that no weapon had been recovered, expressly refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

It nevertheless found the circumstances favourable for bail: the applicant had been in custody since 7 June 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Although the State highlighted one criminal antecedent, the Court, after considering the nature of the allegation and the overall circumstances, exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of release on bail.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement, along with consequences for unjustified absence or misuse of bail.