Second bail cannot be granted absent substantial change after merits-based rejection.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, for alleged offences under Sections 332(B), 351(2), and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 25 February 2026 at approximately 9:30 a.m., the applicant entered the victim’s house and committed a sexual offence against her while threatening her with a knife and putting her in fear of death.

The applicant had been in custody since 14 March 2026, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

His first bail application, MCRC No. 4740 of 2026, had previously been rejected on merits on 9 July 2026.

In the second application, the applicant relied on an alleged affair between himself and the victim and on complaints made by his wife seeking records and CCTV footage, while the State opposed bail on the ground that there was no substantial change in circumstances and that the allegations were serious.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a second bail application after his earlier application had been rejected on merits?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s continued custody, and the defence relating to an alleged affair and the victim’s alleged false implication constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In considering a successive bail application, the Court applied the principle that reconsideration is ordinarily justified only where there has been a substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier application on merits.

The Court also considered the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 332(B), 351(2), and 64(1) of the BNS, the manner in which the alleged offence was committed, and the material collected during investigation.

Defences involving an alleged affair, false implication, and disputed factual allegations were treated as matters requiring examination during trial rather than determination at the bail stage.

The Court held that the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits and that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred thereafter.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 14 March 2026, those circumstances alone did not justify a second bail order, particularly in the absence of any material change following the earlier rejection.

The alleged affair between the applicant and the victim and the complaints submitted by the applicant’s wife raised disputed questions of fact that could not appropriately be adjudicated in the bail proceedings.

Given the serious allegation that the applicant entered the victim’s house and committed the alleged sexual offence while threatening her with a knife, along with the investigation material and the manner of commission alleged, the Court found no basis to exercise its discretion in favour of bail.

The Court concluded that the seriousness of the allegations and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the first bail application made the applicant unsuitable for release on bail.

However, it directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.