Second bail denied absent changed circumstances, particularly where criminal antecedents remain pending.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 72/2026 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod, for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The prosecution alleged that, acting on secret information regarding illegal possession and sale of country-made liquor, the police conducted patrolling and recovered 6.48 bulk litres of liquor kept at an open place near the incident site.

The applicant was apprehended in connection with the recovery but could not produce any document or authority establishing lawful possession.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant contended that no liquor was seized from his possession, that the recovery was from an open place, and that he had been falsely implicated.

He also relied on his alleged heart ailment and stated that he had remained in custody since 7 April 2026.

His first bail application, MCRC No. 3765/2026, had previously been rejected by a Coordinate Bench, principally on the ground that he had three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which remained pending.

The State opposed the second bail application on the ground that there had been no change in circumstances after rejection of the first application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915?

Whether any substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the first bail application justified reconsideration of the applicant’s prayer for bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, concerning the alleged unlawful possession of liquor.

The Court followed the settled principle that a subsequent bail application must ordinarily demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances after rejection of an earlier application; a second bail application cannot be used merely to re-argue grounds already considered.

The Court also treated the applicant’s pending criminal antecedents as a relevant consideration in assessing the propriety of granting bail.

The Court noted that the first bail application had been rejected by a Coordinate Bench, particularly because the applicant had three pending criminal cases under the Excise Act.

Although the applicant asserted that the liquor had been recovered from an open place, that he had no connection with it, and that he suffered from a heart ailment, the Court found no substantial subsequent change in circumstances warranting departure from the earlier order.

The filing of the charge-sheet and the applicant’s continued custody did not, in the circumstances of the case, overcome the significance of his criminal antecedents or establish a basis for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the earlier rejection of bail.

The second bail application of Bharat Lal Gangber under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was therefore rejected.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information and compliance.