Bail cannot be reconsidered absent a substantial change in circumstances after prior rejection on merits.

The appellant challenged, under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the order dated 6 February 2026 by which the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahasamund, rejected his bail application in Crime No. 76/2025, registered for offences under Sections 64(1) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that, around midnight on 30 May 2025, the appellant forcibly entered the victim’s house, gagged her, and sexually assaulted her against her will. On her raising an alarm, her family members reached the spot, apprehended the appellant, and expelled him from the house.

The appellant’s earlier bail application, CRA No. 1720/2025, had been rejected on merits by a Co-ordinate Bench on 29 October 2025.

In the present application, he relied principally on the victim’s cross-examination, the alleged absence of medical support, and the submission that she was a consenting adult.

The victim had been examined before the trial court and, in her examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution case.

Whether the subsequent examination of the victim before the trial court constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the appellant’s successive bail application?

Whether the material on record, particularly the victim’s deposition alleging forcible sexual assault, made out a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail?

Whether the Court could assess the medical evidence and the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s cross-examination in detail at the stage of bail?

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which provides for an appeal against an order refusing bail in proceedings involving offences under the Act.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 64(1) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court applied the principle governing successive bail applications that a previously rejected bail application may be reconsidered only upon a substantial change in circumstances.

It further applied the settled bail-stage principle that the court must make a prima facie assessment of the prosecution material and should not conduct a detailed evaluation of medical evidence or undertake a mini-trial at that stage.

The Court found that the victim’s deposition before the trial court categorically stated that the appellant forcibly entered her house at about midnight and sexually assaulted her against her will; she also stated that her in-laws arrived and that the appellant was thrown out of the room.

This testimony prima facie supported the prosecution’s allegation of forcible sexual assault.

Although the appellant relied on aspects of the victim’s cross-examination concerning the construction of the house, access through the door, and the alleged possibility of consent, the Court did not consider those matters sufficient to displace the prima facie case at the bail stage.

The Court also declined to examine the medical evidence in detail, holding that such appreciation was inappropriate while deciding bail.

Since the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits and the subsequent examination of the victim did not amount to a substantial change in circumstances, the Court found no basis for interfering with the earlier refusal of bail.

The appeal/bail application was accordingly dismissed, and bail was refused to Niyazuddin @ Rangu Khan in Crime No. 76/2025 for offences under Sections 64(1) and 331(4) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Registry was directed to transmit a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court.