Second bail application is untenable absent changed circumstances or a new ground warranting reconsideration.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 90/2025 registered at Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 317(4), 318(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to a cyber-cell complaint, ₹15,000 out of an alleged cyber-fraud amount of ₹7,39,500 was credited to the applicant’s Bandhan Bank account as part of a planned scheme to earn illegal money.

The applicant’s earlier bail application had been rejected on merits on 26 November 2025.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the applicant relied on completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, custody since 2 June 2025, and the fact that 9 of 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined.

The State opposed bail, asserting that ₹6,23,103.04 connected with cyber fraud had been deposited into accounts of the applicant and his parents, that ₹36,14,817.36 had been transferred through UPI and IMPS, and that 38 financial-fraud complaints had been received from 16 States.

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, read with Sections 317(4), 318(2), and 61(2) BNS, 2023, under which the applicant had been charged.

The Court also applied the established principle governing successive bail applications that a subsequent application must ordinarily be founded on a material change in circumstances or a substantial new ground where the earlier application was rejected on merits.

The seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences and the prosecution material are relevant considerations in determining entitlement to bail.

The Court acknowledged the applicant’s reliance on the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, absence of prior criminal antecedents, and partial examination of prosecution witnesses.

However, the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits, and the State placed before the Court allegations of substantial cyber-fraud deposits, large-scale transfers, and complaints originating from multiple States.

The Court held that the examination of 9 of 19 witnesses did not amount to a material change in circumstances or a new ground sufficient to disturb the earlier order.

Considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, the Court concluded that the applicant did not make out a fit case for regular bail.

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

The Registry was directed to provide the certified copy of the order to the trial court for necessary compliance.