Dismissed

Shivam Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/7088/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the applicant's plea for regular bail in a case involving the unlawful possession of a steel knife under the Arms Act, citing the applicant's status as a habitual offender with pending antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant not enlarged on regular bail.

Shivam Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010300322026 2026:CGHC:40185

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7088 of 2026

¶6

Shivam Chouhan S/o Late Prakash Chouhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Lalkhadan, Pariyapara, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

--- Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

	---Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

15.09.2026

¶14

1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.367/2026, registered by Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

¶15

2) The prosecution story in brief, is that on 03.07.2026, local police

¶16

¶17

while patrolling received information that the present applicant was openly wielding a steel knife, terrorizing ordinary pedestrians and disrupting public order near the marketplace. Acting on information, police apprehended the applicant on the spot and one steel knife was seized from his possession. Thereafter, the crime has been registered against the present applicant.

¶18

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has five criminal antecedents of similar nature out of which two cases have been disposed and three cases are still pending and in the present case, chargesheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

¶19

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that applicant has three live criminal antecedents of similar nature, which have been explained by the counsel for the applicant in para No.4(a) of the bail application, as such he is a habitual offender. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

6) Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has three live criminal antecedents of similar nature which are still pending, the same have been explained by the counsel for the applicant in para No.4(a) of the bail application and as such, it appears that the present applicant is a habitual offender.

¶23

7) In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected .

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶26

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.15 17:45:32 +0530

Shivam Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases