Second bail rejected for lack of changed circumstances in organized cyber fraud prosecution.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), and 61(2)(A) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that a "mule account" at IDFC First Bank was used to fraudulently receive Rs. 3,00,000/- from multiple victims across India on 31.12.2024.

During the investigation, the account holder, Yashoda Kurre, stated that the applicant had taken her bank account details and SIM card while impersonating a Human Rights Commission worker and journalist.

The applicant was arrested on 01.09.2025, and a mobile phone and identity card were seized from his possession.

The first bail application was rejected on merits by the High Court on 15.12.2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail in a second application following the filing of a charge-sheet and a period of prolonged custody.

2. Whether the applicant demonstrated a "change in circumstances" or new grounds sufficient to override the previous rejection of bail on merits.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC), regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Substantive liability was assessed under Sections 317, 318, and 61(2)(A) of the BNS, 2023, which pertain to cheating, property obtained by fraud, and criminal conspiracy.

The Court further adhered to the judicial principle that a second bail application is generally not maintainable unless there is a substantial change in circumstances or new evidence that was not available during the first application.

The Court evaluated the evidence presented in the Investigating Officer's affidavit, which indicated the applicant's active role in a large-scale cyber fraud operation.

Although the applicant argued that no bank documents were seized and that he was falsely implicated, the Court found that the statement of the account holder directly linking the applicant to the "mule account" provided strong prima facie evidence of involvement.

The Court noted that the seizure of the mobile phone and a fake Human Rights Commission ID card corroborated the prosecution’s theory of impersonation and fraud.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the applicant’s criminal antecedents involving Section 420 and 120-B of the IPC (cheating and conspiracy) and the fact that several co-accused remained absconding.

Ultimately, the Court determined that the filing of the charge-sheet did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant bail, given the gravity of the offence and the consistency of the evidence since the first rejection.

It held that no new grounds or changes in circumstances were established to justify a departure from the previous order of rejection.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously and ordered a copy of the judgment to be sent for immediate compliance.