Second bail application is rejected absent substantial change in circumstances or a new ground.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in Crime No. 400/2025 registered at Police Station Koni, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that Dev Prasad became ill after consuming homemade liquor, was admitted to CIMS, and died during treatment on 5 February 2025.

During the merg inquiry, it was allegedly disclosed that the liquor had been purchased from co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, who stated in her memorandum that the liquor had been supplied to her by the applicant.

The applicant had been in custody since 28 August 2025.

His first bail application, MCRC No. 10534 of 2025, was rejected on merits on 13 January 2026, while the co-accused’s bail application was also rejected.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which governs the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It treated a successive bail application, after rejection of an earlier application on merits, as requiring demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances or a genuinely new ground before reconsideration.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 105 and 3(5) BNS, the seriousness of the prosecution allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the status of the co-accused’s bail, and the evidentiary and procedural circumstances relevant to bail determination.

The Court found that the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits and that the applicant had not established any substantial change in circumstances or new ground warranting reconsideration.

The prosecution material connected the applicant to the alleged supply of liquor through the memorandum statement of co-accused Panch Bai, who allegedly stated that the liquor consumed by the deceased had been supplied by the applicant.

The Court considered the allegations grave because they concerned the supply of illicit or homemade liquor allegedly consumed before the deceased’s death.

It further treated the applicant’s eight criminal antecedents, rejection of bail to the co-accused, and the absence of supporting trial order-sheets as relevant adverse circumstances.

Although prolonged custody was urged, the applicant failed to place material demonstrating the actual progress or delay in the trial; consequently, the Court held that the plea of likely delay was unsupported.

It held that no substantial change in circumstances or new ground had been shown after rejection of the first bail application, and that the seriousness of the allegations, investigation material, criminal antecedents, rejection of the co-accused’s bail, and unsupported plea of trial delay justified continued detention.

The second bail application was therefore rejected.

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.