Bail cannot be reconsidered absent substantial change; witness credibility must be assessed at trial.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 138/2025 registered at Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 64(1), 70(1), 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 31 March 2025, the applicant called the victim to his house on the pretext of discussing a marriage proposal, thereafter restrained, threatened and sexually assaulted her without her consent; co-accused Surendra Kumar Singh, the applicant’s uncle, allegedly participated in the incident.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 April 2025, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

His first bail application was rejected on merits on 2 July 2025, and his second bail application was rejected on 7 August 2026.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the applicant’s SLP (Crl.) No. 55181/2025 arising from the rejection of the first bail application on 25 February 2026.

In the present third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the applicant relied on the victim’s examination as PW-1, alleged parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, prolonged custody and the likelihood of delay in trial.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the victim had supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief and that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred.

Whether the applicant’s third application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS was maintainable on the ground of an alleged substantial change in circumstances, particularly the victim’s examination before the trial court, prolonged custody and the grant of bail to the co-accused.

Whether, at the stage of considering bail, the Court could assess the reliability or credibility of the victim’s testimony, including the defence contention that she had not supported the prosecution case.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered the settled principle that a successive bail application is ordinarily maintainable only upon demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances, particularly where an earlier bail application has been rejected on merits.

The Court further applied the principle that, at the stage of bail, it cannot undertake a detailed evaluation of the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness; such assessment is reserved for the final adjudication of the trial.

The Court also considered the seriousness of the alleged offences, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the rejection of earlier bail applications, dismissal of the SLP, and the principle that parity with a co-accused does not automatically entitle an applicant to bail where the applicant’s role and surrounding circumstances are materially relevant.

The Court found that the applicant had not established any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail.

Although the victim had been examined as PW-1, the Court noted that she had supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief.

The defence argument regarding the alleged inconsistency or non-support by the victim involved an assessment of her credibility, which the Court held could not properly be undertaken at the bail stage.

The Court gave weight to the gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the previous rejection of bail on merits, the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, and the rejection of the second bail application.

These factors outweighed the applicant’s reliance on custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the co-accused’s bail order.

It further held that the credibility of the victim’s testimony could not be tested at the bail stage.

Accordingly, the applicant’s third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was rejected in connection with Crime No. 138/2025 for offences under Sections 64(1), 70(1), 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information and compliance.