Recording of victim's testimony and motive of land dispute constitute insufficient change in circumstances for second bail.

The applicant, Mukesh Kumar, was arrested on July 2, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 173/2025 for allegedly entering the victim’s house on July 1, 2025, and committing forcible sexual intercourse.

This is the applicant's second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS); his first application (MCRC No. 6492 of 2025) was rejected on merits on August 18, 2025.

The applicant sought bail on new grounds, including ten months of incarceration, the victim’s trial testimony allegedly suggesting consent, and a claim of false implication due to a land dispute where the applicant, as Up-Sarpanch, had issued notices to the victim’s family.

1. Whether the recording of the victim's statement and the disclosure of a prior land dispute constitute a "substantial change in circumstances" sufficient to grant bail in a second application.

2. Whether the expected delay in the trial, with only two out of eighteen witnesses examined, warrants the release of the applicant on bail.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The court followed the established principle that a second bail application is maintainable only if there is a substantial change in circumstances since the rejection of the first application.

applied Sections 64(1) (Punishment for rape) and 331(4) (Lurking house-trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, considering the gravity of the offences charged.

The Court held that interpreting specific portions of a victim’s statement during trial or raising motives related to a land dispute does not qualify as a "substantial change in circumstances" for the purpose of reconsidering a bail plea previously rejected on merits.

Regarding the procedural delay, the Court reasoned that the slow progress of the trial (two out of eighteen witnesses examined) is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to override the seriousness of the charges and the initial rejection on merits.

The application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to be informed of the compliance.