Bail denied where accused was present at crime scene armed with licensed weapon despite not firing.

The applicant, Ranveer Singh Yadav, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The prosecution alleges that on February 5, 2025, during a panchayat meeting regarding a land dispute in village Gokulpur, a co-accused (Ramu Yadav) shot and killed one person and injured two others.

The applicant was allegedly present at the scene, armed with a licensed firearm, and joined the assault by brandishing his weapon and threatening to kill the survivors.

The applicant was arrested on February 16, 2025, for offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 296, and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25/27 and 30 of the Arms Act.

A previous bail application was dismissed on October 27, 2025.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds that he did not personally fire any shots and that material witnesses have already been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite being present at the crime scene with a firearm and issuing death threats during a fatal assault.

2. Whether the examination of material prosecution witnesses and the assertion that the applicant's role was limited to exhortation constitute a "change of circumstances" sufficient to grant a second bail application.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of bail.

A successive bail application requires a "change of circumstances" or new grounds that were not previously considered.

In serious criminal matters, the court must consider the gravity of the offence and the nature of the applicant's involvement, specifically the presence of a weapon and threats.

The court evaluated the applicant's contention that his role was limited to exhortation and that he arrived only after the shooting began.

The court found it established that the applicant was present at the spot while armed with a licensed firearm and actively threatened the victims.

The court reasoned that since one person died and others were injured in his presence while he was armed, the offence remains of a "serious nature".

Regarding the procedural status, the court noted that the arguments regarding the merits had already been considered during the first bail rejection and determined that the examination of witnesses did not equate to a material change in circumstances.

No case for regular bail was made out because no new grounds or change of circumstances existed since the dismissal of the first application.

The gravity of the allegations and the applicant's armed presence at a fatal scene outweighed the fact that he did not personally discharge his firearm.

Relief was denied.