Misuse of liberty and commission of similar offences preclude discretionary relief in subsequent bail applications.

The applicant was charged under Sections 64(2)(M), 295, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following allegations of rape

The applicant was initially arrested on January 22, 2025, and the charge-sheet was filed on February 8, 2025

Although a Co-ordinate Bench granted the applicant bail on February 20, 2025, that bail was subsequently cancelled on January 6, 2026, in M.Cr.C. No. 20583 of 2025

The cancellation was predicated on the applicant’s involvement in a similar offence while on liberty, which the court deemed a misuse of the benefit of bail

The applicant, having been in custody since January 19, 2026, filed this third bail application citing the disposal of several prior criminal cases and the anticipated length of the trial

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the prior cancellation of bail for breaching bail conditions and committing similar offences

2. Whether any new grounds or subsequent developments exist to justify the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the applicant

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) concerning the power of the High Court to grant bail

It relied on the settled legal principle that bail may be cancelled if an accused misuses their liberty, attempts to subvert the course of justice, or commits a similar offence while on bail

Furthermore, the court considered the relevance of criminal antecedents and the propensity of the accused to commit crimes as critical factors in the discretionary refusal of bail

The court analyzed the applicant’s conduct and criminal history, noting that he had 13 registered cases against him

The court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant's previous bail was cancelled specifically because he involved himself in an offence of a similar nature while out on bail

The court reasoned that such conduct clearly established that the applicant had failed to adhere to judicial conditions and demonstrated a propensity for recidivism

Although the counsel for the applicant argued that many of the prior cases were either disposed of or related to preventive actions, the court found that the recent misuse of liberty outweighed these arguments

Ultimately, the court determined that the applicant's previous misconduct and the lack of any fresh, substantial change in circumstances precluded the grant of bail

Finding no new grounds or subsequent developments to warrant the exercise of its discretion, the High Court dismissed the third application for grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS