MCRC/9032/2026 of SAHIL MARAVI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 11 October 2026

1. This is the applicant's second application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail. The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No. 748/2026, registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for offences punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.09.2026 passed in MCRC No. 8326 of 2026.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.06.2026, the complainant's husband, Mohit Das, was getting his motorcycle repaired at an adjacent garage when the applicant, Sahil Maravi, arrived and, nursing a grudge over the refusal of a marriage proposal of the victim's daughter, launched a brutal assault with a sharp-edged knife. It is alleged that the applicant repeatedly stabbed the victim on his back, and when the victim attempted to turn and defend himself, inflicted further stab wounds to his chest, arm, and hand with the intention to commit murder. The victim sustained severe and grievous stab injuries on vital parts of his body and had to be hospitalized in an unconscious state at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. On report being lodged to the above effect, the FIR was registered against the applicant and taken into custody.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case on exaggerated allegations. It is submitted that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the injuries are not shown to be dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. It is further contended that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.06.2026; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in further detention.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submitted that the applicant inflicted multiple knife blows on vital and vulnerable areas of the injured/victim i.e. the chest and back. The manner and nature of the assault reflect a clear intention to cause death, and the offence is heinous and grave; hence, the applicant is not entitled to grant of regular bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and material on record, and taking into account the gravity and nature of the offence, the specific overt act attributed to the applicant, and particularly the fact that repeated knife stab injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the victim's body (chest and back), this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected. Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

JUDGE Nadim