Vikas Pasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 113/2026, registered at Police StationTorwa, District- Bilaspur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

¶16

RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

¶17

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.03.2026, Sub-Inspector Kamlanarayan Sharma, who was posted at Police Station Torwa, had gone to Torwa Basti along with the police staff in connection

¶18

2

¶19

with crime investigation and patrolling duties. During the course of his duty, he received credible information from an informer that one Vikas Pasi was creating fear and panic among passers-by near Muktidham Road, close to the cremation ground, by brandishing a steel knife in his hand. Acting upon the said information, the SubInspector, along with the accompanying police personnel, immediately proceeded to the spot and found a person waving a steel knife in a threatening manner. The said person was apprehended on the spot and, upon interrogation, disclosed his name as Vikas Pasi. A steel knife measuring approximately 13.5 inches in total length, including a blade of about 8 inches in length and 1¾ inches in width with a handle measuring about 5.5 inches, was recovered from his possession and seized in accordance with law. The accused was thereafter taken into custody and, on the basis of the recovery and the circumstances of the case, was found to have committed offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Following his arrest, a thorough investigation was conducted and, upon completion thereof, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Hence, this bail application.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has neither committed nor been involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that the essential ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that the FIR has been

¶21

3

¶22

registered without conducting a fair and proper enquiry and that the applicant has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of false, concocted, and baseless allegations. He further argues that the allegations levelled by the prosecution are vague, unsubstantiated, and devoid of any credible evidence. It is also submitted that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case and there is no reliable material on record to establish the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. He also submits that the applicant has 13 previous criminal antecedents which are explained in this bail application, and he is in jail since 01.03.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶23

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that the applicant was apprehended on the spot while brandishing a steel knife and creating fear among the general public. It is contended that the weapon was duly recovered and seized from his possession and, therefore, a prima facie case under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is clearly made out against him. Learned State Counsel further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender having as many as 13 criminal antecedents registered against him at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur, involving serious offences under the IPC/BNS, POCSO Act, Excise Act, and Arms Act, including

¶24

4

¶25

offences relating to assault, robbery, theft, rioting, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder, and illegal possession of arms. In view of his long criminal history and propensity to commit offences, there is every likelihood that, if released on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities and adversely affect public peace and order. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application.

¶26

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the applicant was allegedly found brandishing a steel knife in a public place and creating fear amongst passers-by, as well as the material collected during the investigation. The record further reveals that the applicant is a habitual offender having as many as 13 criminal antecedents registered against him, including cases involving offences of robbery, theft, assault, criminal intimidation, rioting, attempt to murder, offences under the POCSO Act, Excise Act, and even a previous case under the Arms Act. Such a long and continuous criminal history indicates a persistent tendency to engage in unlawful activities and demonstrates a disregard for the rule of law. In view of the applicant’s criminal antecedents, there exists a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, he may

¶28

5

¶29

again indulge in similar offences and pose a threat to public peace and safety. Therefore, considering the overall facts, circumstances, gravity of the offence, and the criminal history of the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

¶30

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Vikas Pasi, involved in Crime No. 113/2026, registered at Police StationTorwa, District- Bilaspur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected.

¶31

8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶32

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Rahul Dewangan