Second bail application rejected for failure to demonstrate any change in circumstances since previous dismissal.

On May 1, 2025, the body of Laxman @ Raju Bhatt was discovered in a canal (Gadriya Nala) after he failed to return from a marriage ceremony.

Following an investigation, the police arrested the applicant (the deceased's wife) and several co-accused, including her son, on May 6, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with the co-accused, murdered the deceased due to his history of physical and mental torture toward her.

The police filed a chargesheet under Sections 103(1), 190, and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The applicant moved this second bail application after the previous application (MCRC No. 1020/2026) was withdrawn on February 2, 2026.

Whether there are sufficient changed circumstances to warrant the grant of bail to the applicant in a repeat application involving charges of murder?

Whether the applicant's status as a woman and mother of three, coupled with the alleged inadmissibility of her memorandum statement, entitles her to release on bail?

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court considered the principles governing repeat bail applications, which require a "change of circumstances" for reconsideration.

The principle that a statement made to the police without the discovery of a fact is not substantive evidence regarding the admissibility of memorandum statements.

The court evaluated the applicant’s argument that her implication was based purely on a memorandum statement which, in the absence of incriminating recoveries (other than a mobile phone), was inadmissible in evidence.

The defense further emphasized that the applicant was not at the scene of the crime and that the main assailants acted independently.

The State argued that there was sufficient evidence to connect the applicant to the conspiracy and the crime, for which she offered no plausible explanation.

The Court determined that the gravity and nature of the offense outweighed the personal circumstances of the applicant.

The Court found that there had been no "change of circumstances" since the withdrawal of the first bail application just a month prior, thus precluding a different outcome.

The Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of eight months, provided no legal impediments arise.

The office was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the trial court for compliance.