Second bail requires a new ground; previously considered parity with co-accused is insufficient.

During the paddy procurement season from 1 November 2020 to 30 January 2021, the Primary Krishi Sakha Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pirda, allegedly suffered a shortage of paddy.

An enquiry committee attributed the shortage to financial irregularities and lack of supervision by the applicant, who was working as a Salesman, along with other employees.

Pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate’s direction, Crime No. 163/2024 was registered at Police Station Basna against seven accused, including the applicant, for offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 IPC, involving alleged embezzlement of approximately ₹4.45 crores.

The applicant was arrested on 8 June 2026. His first bail application was rejected on merits on 23 July 2026.

In the present second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, he relied on the grant of bail or anticipatory bail to co-accused persons, his period of custody, and the asserted filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail on the grounds that the applicant was specifically named, had allegedly absconded from 27 March 2024 until his arrest, and had a materially distinct role in the alleged embezzlement.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 420 IPC concerning cheating, 409 IPC concerning criminal breach of trust by a public servant or person in a position of trust, and 34 IPC concerning acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

In considering a second bail application, the Court applied the principle that a subsequent application must disclose a substantial new ground or material change in circumstances; grounds already considered while rejecting the first application cannot ordinarily be re-agitated.

The Court also applied the principle that parity with co-accused is not automatic where the applicant’s role, conduct, or circumstances are materially distinguishable.

The Court found that the first bail application had been rejected because the allegations involved embezzlement of approximately ₹4.45 crores, the enquiry report prima facie attributed financial irregularities and lack of supervision to the applicant, he had remained absconding for a considerable period, and the investigation was then pending.

Although the applicant relied on the grant of bail to co-accused persons, the Court held that the issue of parity had already been considered in the earlier bail order and did not constitute a new ground.

Further, the State’s submissions regarding the applicant’s prolonged abscondence and distinct role differentiated his case from those of the co-accused.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that no material change in circumstances was shown to justify interference with the earlier refusal of bail.

It held that the grant of bail to co-accused persons did not entitle the applicant to parity and that no new ground existed for entertaining the second application.

The trial Court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to it for necessary information and compliance.