Bail denied in attempted murder case involving knife assault and extortion demand despite absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on 27.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 730/2025

On 26.11.2025, the victim, Anup Yadav, was allegedly approached by the applicant at a medical store in Rajnandgaon

The applicant reportedly demanded ₹10,00,000, and upon the victim’s refusal, the applicant allegedly assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries to his face, neck, and chest

The victim provided a sworn statement before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 24.12.2025

The applicant contended that the story was concocted, the injuries were simple (6-7 days hospitalization), and that he had no criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and gravity of the offense

The court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail

Substantive charges were registered under Section 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), relating to attempts to murder/abetment (as interpreted in the context of the assault) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act regarding the use of a prohibited weapon (knife)

The court balanced the individual’s liberty against the seriousness of the offense, the specific role of the accused, and the potential threat to the victim/society

The court evaluated the gravity of the offense and the specific role attributed to the applicant

While the applicant argued the injuries were non-life-threatening and the story was fabricated, the court noted that the victim’s statement before the Magistrate prima facie corroborated the prosecution's case regarding the demand for money and the subsequent violent assault

The court emphasized the serious nature of the injuries—specifically targeting the face, neck, and chest—and the motive (extortionate demand)

It determined that the manner of commission and the corroborative evidence outweighed the applicant's arguments regarding the duration of the victim's hospitalization or the applicant’s lack of criminal history

It held that, given the gravity of the offense and the specific allegations of a knife assault following an extortion demand, it was not a fit case for regular bail

The Trial Court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously