Second Bail Application Rejected Where Witness Testimony Reaffirms Involvement Despite Clerical Errors in Initial Reports

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following his arrest in connection with a violent clash between two private coal transporter groups (SN Group and MTC Group)

On 28.03.2025, a free fight involving weapons like country-made pistols, swords, and knives occurred at the Saraipali mines, resulting in the death of Rohit Jaiswal

While the applicant was not named in the initial FIR or Merg report, the complainant later testified before the trial court that he had disclosed the applicant's name to the police, but they erroneously recorded it as "Roshan Singh Thakur"

The applicant’s previous bail application (MCRC No. 5829 of 2025) was rejected on merits on 25.07.2025

1. Whether the subsequent recording of the complainant’s statement naming the applicant constitutes a "new ground" or change in circumstances sufficient to grant regular bail after a previous rejection on merits

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence and the rejection of a co-accused’s SLP by the Supreme Court

The Court applied the provisions governing regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 191(2) (Rioting), 191(3) (Rioting with deadly weapon), 190 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 103(1) (Punishment for murder), and 61(2)(a) (Criminal conspiracy) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The Court also adhered to the principle of judicial discipline regarding successive bail applications, noting that bail may be denied if no new grounds exist and the previous application was rejected on merits

The Court examined the applicant's contention that his omission from the FIR and the alleged police error in recording names warranted bail

However, the Court balanced this against the complainant’s testimony in the trial court, which explicitly implicated the applicant in the incident

The High Court observed that the gravity of the offence—a violent group clash leading to a fatality—and the fact that the previous bail plea was rejected on merits weighed heavily against the applicant

Furthermore, the Court noted that a co-accused (Vivek Kumar Kaushik) had their SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the seriousness of the allegations

The Court found no "new ground" had been established to deviate from its prior rejection

The Court held that given the seriousness of the allegations and the lack of fresh grounds, the applicant is not entitled to liberty at this stage

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously