Delay in witness examination alone does not justify reconsidering bail absent substantial change in circumstances.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced through a fake WhatsApp investment group and fraudulent trading application to transfer Rs. 18,15,442; part of the money was transferred to the applicant’s UCO Bank account.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 11 May 2026.

In this second application, he relied principally on delay in the trial, noting that no prosecution witness had been examined, and asserted that he had no criminal antecedents and lacked knowledge of the alleged fraud.

Whether the alleged delay in the examination of prosecution witnesses constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s second bail application after the first application was rejected on merits.

Whether, in light of the allegations and material collected during investigation, the applicant should be granted regular bail.

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

On a successive bail application following rejection on merits, the Court considered whether a substantial change in circumstances had arisen to justify a different decision; it held that the grounds raised here, including delay in witness examination, did not meet that threshold in the circumstances of the case.

The Court noted that the first bail application had been rejected after consideration of the case’s overall circumstances, the gravity of the allegations, and the material collected against the applicant.

It treated the applicant’s lack of antecedents and asserted lack of knowledge as matters substantially bearing on the merits. Although no witness had yet been examined, the Court held that this delay, in the circumstances presented, did not amount to a substantial change warranting departure from the earlier decision. Given the serious allegations and prima facie material, it declined bail.

It expressed the hope that the trial court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.