Discharge on one offence alone is not a substantial change warranting second bail.

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

The prosecution alleged that the accused induced the complainant to pay approximately ₹73,23,291 in connection with a purported loan arrangement.

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

He renewed his application after the trial court discharged him from the offence under Section 111(4) of the BNS, arguing that this was a change in circumstances; the State opposed bail, relying on allegations that he facilitated the use of a bank account to route and withdraw the cheated funds and received commission.

Whether the applicant’s discharge from the offence under Section 111(4) of the BNS amounted to a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of his successive bail application.

Whether, having regard to the remaining allegations and material collected during investigation, the applicant should be released on regular bail.

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

In considering a successive bail application following an earlier merits-based rejection, the Court assessed whether subsequent circumstances materially justified a different view.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Section 318(4) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, alongside the applicant’s discharge under Section 111(4) of the BNS.

No precedent was cited in the order.

The Court held that the applicant’s discharge from the Section 111(4) BNS charge did not, by itself, eliminate or materially affect the allegations concerning the remaining offences.

The case diary material continued to indicate a prima facie role in facilitating the use of a bank account to route and withdraw the allegedly cheated amount and receiving commission.

In view of that material and the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court found no substantial change in circumstances sufficient to depart from the earlier rejection of bail.

It rejected the second bail application.