Repeated criminal antecedents and absence of changed circumstances justify rejecting a successive bail application.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, for alleged offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

On 23 April 2026, police allegedly intercepted the applicant and co-accused Pamlesh Bhaskar while they were travelling on a three-wheeler Honda Activa pursuant to secret information regarding illegal liquor transportation. Approximately 5.400 bulk litres of country-made liquor were allegedly seized from the applicant, and approximately 6.300 bulk litres of country-made and foreign liquor from the co-accused.

This was the applicant’s third application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. His earlier applications, MCRC Nos. 4953/2026 and 7011/2026, were rejected on 9 July 2026 and 3 August 2026, principally owing to his criminal antecedents, including four cases under the Excise Act.

The applicant contended that he was permanently disabled, had remained in custody since 23 April 2026, and that only two of the nine prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, together with Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, under which the applicant was prosecuted.

The Court applied the principle that a successive bail application requires a substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier application; mere reiteration of previously available grounds is insufficient.

It also relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, emphasising that previous criminal antecedents are a relevant consideration in assessing whether bail should be granted and may justify refusal or cancellation of bail.

The Court found that the applicant’s earlier bail applications had been rejected primarily because of his antecedents in similar Excise Act cases and that two such cases continued to remain pending even after those rejections, indicating repeated involvement in comparable offences.

The alleged recovery of 5.400 bulk litres of liquor from the applicant and the examination of two seizure witnesses, who supported the prosecution case, were also considered against him.

Although the Court noted the applicant’s permanent disability, custody since 23 April 2026, the Magistrate-triable nature of the offences, and the limited progress of the trial, it held that these circumstances did not amount to a substantial change warranting reconsideration of bail.

In light of the alleged recovery, repeated similar involvement, pending Excise Act cases, and the successive nature of the application, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power in the applicant’s favour.

The Court held that the grounds relied upon by the applicant did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances and that his antecedents and pending similar cases outweighed the considerations of disability, custody period, and anticipated trial delay.

The trial Court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to it for information and compliance.