Extensive criminal antecedents and no changed circumstances justify rejecting a second bail application.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 41/2025, registered for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109, 190 and 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others assaulted the complainant and his companions with iron rods and other weapons; the complainant identified the applicant in photographs prepared from CCTV footage, and a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected, with the Court considering the injuries and his criminal antecedents.

In the second application, he relied, among other grounds, on parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail; the State opposed, citing the applicant’s 15 antecedents, including 10 pending cases.

Whether the applicant demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of his second bail application after the first application had been rejected.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail despite the difference in their criminal antecedents.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the statutory basis for the regular-bail request.

The Court treated the absence of a substantial change in circumstances as a reason not to reconsider a previously rejected bail application.

It also assessed parity in light of the accused persons’ differing criminal antecedents, rather than treating a co-accused’s bail order as determinative.

The Court found no substantial change in circumstances since the first application had been rejected, including on account of the applicant’s antecedents.

It rejected the parity argument because the co-accused had three criminal antecedents, whereas the applicant had 15, of which 10 cases remained pending; the Court therefore considered their circumstances materially different.

Having regard also to the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the Court declined to grant bail.