MP HC Rejects Second Bail Plea Over Alleged ₹2 Crore Transactions Through Man’s Jan Dhan Account, Finding No Substantial Change Since Earlier Rejection

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered 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.

The prosecution alleged that transactions of approximately ₹2 crore were conducted through a Jan Dhan account opened in the applicant’s name. The account’s linked mobile number was changed, after which transactions allegedly took place through ATM withdrawals, mobile banking and UPI.

The applicant said he lacked knowledge of the transactions and had not received or used the ATM card; the investigation material also referred to the use of his documents by others.

His earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits on 1 June 2026.

In support of the present application, he relied on the completion of the investigation, the nature of the evidence, his custody, lack of recovery or antecedents, and his medical condition.

The State opposed bail and argued that no sufficient change in circumstances justified reconsideration.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s powers concerning bail.

The Court applied the principle that a successive bail application requires sufficient grounds for reconsideration, including a substantial change in circumstances after the earlier rejection.

It also considered the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record.

The Court considered the applicant’s asserted subsequent circumstances, including completion of the investigation, his period of custody, the documentary and electronic nature of the evidence, alleged absence of recovery, and medical condition.

It also considered the State’s opposition and the allegations concerning transactions of approximately ₹2 crore, the changed registered mobile number and ensuing transactions.

The Court concluded that these matters did not establish sufficient grounds or a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection, and that the nature and gravity of the allegations and material on record did not justify exercising its discretion in the applicant’s favour.

It dismissed the second bail application.