Mere further incarceration and trial progress do not justify repeat bail absent changed circumstances.

The applicant was arrested on 08 November 2024 in Crime No. 450/2019 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that he had prepared forged registry documents and supplied them as genuine to several complainants, with the intention of cheating them.

The applicant’s earlier bail application had been rejected by the High Court on 25 February 2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 4765/2026. The present application was his fifth repeat bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS. He relied on his period of custody, examination of material witnesses, and the progress of the trial. The Trial Court’s status report disclosed that 11 of 24 witnesses had been examined.

Whether the applicant had demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances or a new ground warranting reconsideration of his fifth repeat bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody and the progress of the trial constituted sufficient grounds for grant of bail despite rejection of the earlier bail application.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court’s power to grant bail in appropriate cases.

In a repeat bail application, reconsideration requires a substantial change in circumstances or a genuinely new ground arising after rejection of the earlier application. The Court further applied the principle that mere further incarceration or progress of the trial, by itself, does not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances where the relevant considerations have already been examined in the earlier bail proceedings.

The pending prosecution concerned offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC relating to cheating and forgery.

The Court noted that the applicant primarily relied on the period of custody and the fact that the trial had progressed. However, 11 of 24 witnesses had been examined and the trial was continuing. The applicant failed to identify any substantial change in circumstances or new ground after the rejection of his previous bail application.

The Court also observed that the delay in concluding the trial was attributable, at least partly, to the presence of two accused persons represented by different counsel, with witnesses being cross-examined on behalf of both accused. Accordingly, neither the additional period of custody nor the progress of the trial was considered sufficient to justify reconsideration of bail.

The applicant’s fifth repeat bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was therefore rejected.