A second bail application is rejected where no change in circumstances is shown.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 32/2025, registered for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The prosecution alleged that suspicious bank accounts identified through the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Samanvaya Portal were used as mule accounts for cyber-fraud proceeds, and that certain amounts were credited to an account allegedly connected with the applicant.

The applicant denied that the account belonged to him and relied on his custody since 17 April 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated length of trial.

The State opposed bail, referring to the alleged organized cyber-fraud racket and the denial of bail to similarly situated co-accused.

This was the applicant’s second bail application; his first had been dismissed on 9 July 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the grounds advanced in his second application.

Whether any change in circumstances since dismissal of the first bail application justified reconsideration of bail.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governed the request for regular bail.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the prior rejection of bail, the treatment of co-accused, and whether circumstances had changed since the earlier order.

The order cited no precedent.

The Court considered the applicant’s submissions concerning the disputed bank account, custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and expected trial delay, alongside the State’s opposition and the case diary.

It gave decisive weight to the gravity and nature of the allegations, the earlier rejection of the applicant’s bail application, the denial of bail to co-accused, and the absence of any change in circumstances.

On that basis, it was not inclined to grant bail.

The Court dismissed the second bail application.