Prolonged custody and slow trial progress did not warrant regular bail on a second application.

The applicant, who operated a biryani centre at Ambikapur, was arrested in Crime No. 34/2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur Dehat/Gandhinagar, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 317(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Abhishek Sinha, a regular customer of the applicant, represented that his bank account was non-operational due to KYC and technical issues. Believing this representation, the applicant allegedly permitted the co-accused to use the QR code installed at his biryani centre, through which ₹2,06,786 was credited to the applicant’s bank account between 29 November and 4 December 2024.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 30 April 2026.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, custody since 17 January 2026, and the fact that only one of fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed the application, contending that there was no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the first application.

Whether the subsequent circumstances—continued judicial custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and limited progress of the trial—warranted reconsideration of the applicant’s second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the prior rejection of bail on merits, the applicant was entitled to regular bail at that stage.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving an accused in custody.

In considering a successive bail application, the Court assessed whether there had been a subsequent change in circumstances after the earlier rejection on merits; continued custody and slow progress of trial may constitute changed circumstances, but do not automatically entitle the accused to bail.

The Court also considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicable offences under Sections 317(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court acknowledged that circumstances had changed since rejection of the first bail application: the applicant had remained in custody since 17 January 2026 and only one of fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Nevertheless, these circumstances were not considered sufficient to overcome the earlier merits-based rejection, particularly in view of the nature and gravity of the alleged cyber-fraud-related offences and the overall facts of the case.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against granting bail at that stage.

It directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.

A certified copy was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.