A second bail application requires a substantial change in circumstances after prior rejection on merits.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 52/2026, registered for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

His first bail application had been rejected on merits on 14 July 2026.

In the second application, he relied on alleged deficiencies in the medical evidence and lodge records, the non-supply of a statement sought under the RTI Act, and his period in custody since 15 January 2026.

The State opposed bail, noting that the victim had testified in support of the prosecution case and that no substantial change in circumstances had been shown.

1. Whether the grounds raised in the second bail application established a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail after the first application had been rejected on merits.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in light of the allegations and the evidence recorded before the trial court.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for consideration of an application for regular bail.

In considering a successive bail application after an earlier application has been rejected on merits, the court assessed whether a substantial change in circumstances justified reconsideration.

The charges arose under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court considered the applicant’s arguments concerning the medical evidence, lodge records, and the allegedly undisclosed statement, but found that they did not establish a substantial change in circumstances since the first bail application was rejected.

It also noted that the victim and her mother had been examined before the trial court and had supported the prosecution case.

In view of these circumstances, the Court found no sufficient basis to take a different view on bail.