01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for alleged offences under Sections 318, 3(5), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.
pp. 1–2The prosecution case arose from alleged unauthorised transactions of approximately ₹2 crore through the complainant’s bank account, following a change to the mobile number linked to the account and subsequent ATM, mobile-banking and UPI transactions.
pp. 1–2The applicant had been in custody since 11 December 2025; his earlier bail application was dismissed on merits on 1 June 2026.
p. 1On the second application, he relied on completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, a co-accused’s release on bail, and an asserted settlement.
pp. 3–4The State opposed bail, including on the ground that no sufficient change in circumstances had been shown.
pp. 3–402Issues
i.Whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.
p. 1 · p. 5ii.Whether any substantial change in circumstances after dismissal of the applicant’s earlier bail application warranted reconsideration.
pp. 4–503Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court with jurisdiction to consider an application for regular bail.
p. 1In considering the second application, the Court assessed whether sufficient grounds and a substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated since the earlier rejection, taking account of the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material on record.
p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318Section 3Section 338Section 336Section 340
04Reasoning
The Court considered the parties’ submissions and perused the case diary and material on record.
p. 5It concluded that the applicant had shown neither sufficient grounds for bail nor a substantial change in circumstances since his earlier application was rejected.
p. 5Given the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material then available, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in the applicant’s favour.
p. 505Holding
The Court answered both issues against the applicant.
p. 5Finding no sufficient ground for bail and no substantial change in circumstances after the prior rejection, it dismissed the second regular-bail application.
p. 5Original Court PDF
RajendervsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
