[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkamal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12536
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1223 of 2026
Rajkamal Yadav S/o Late Raju Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Housing
Board Colony, Boriyakala, Mujgahan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
Date: 2026.03.16
17:38:55 +0530
Mujgahan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
16.03.2026
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
05/2026 registered at Police Station - Mujgahan, Raipur, District :
Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27
of the Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has giving
information to the concerned police station that the appellant was
moving knife at open place and on such information, the police has
seized knife and has registered the case under section 25, 27 of the
Arms Act against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are not made out against the
present applicant. The allegations levelled by the prosecution are
false and baseless, and the applicant has neither possessed nor used
any knife nor committed any such offence as alleged. The applicant
has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution, and looking to
the material available on record, no prima facie case is made out
against him. The applicant is in judicial custody and prolonged
incarceration would adversely affect his future. The applicant further
reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing of
the present bail application therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail
to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
already been filed in the present case and that the applicant has four
previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant,
and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been
submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained
in jail since 03.01.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present
applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Rajkamal Yadav, involved in Crime No. 05/2026
registered at Police Station - Mujgahan, Raipur, District : Raipur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with
two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect
that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates
fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be
open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of
bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against his under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and
the applicant fails to appear before the court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court
shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance
with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,
before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening
of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion
of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate
or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the
trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail
and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
