Subsequent bail application rejected absent change in circumstances since previous dismissal on merits.

The applicant filed a third bail application seeking release during trial for offenses under Sections 61, 70(2), 87, 137(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act

The prosecution alleges that on April 13, 2025, the applicant and a co-accused (Abrar Ansari) abducted the victim in a car and committed forcible sexual intercourse

The applicant has been in custody since April 18, 2025

His two previous bail applications were dismissed on merits on August 21, 2025, and January 6, 2026

The applicant pleaded alibi based on CCTV footage and sought parity with the co-accused, who was granted bail by the trial court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and a plea of alibi?

2. Whether there exists any significant change in circumstances since the dismissal of the previous bail applications to justify the grant of bail?

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The Court also considered the principle of parity and the requirement of a "change in circumstances" for successive bail applications

Furthermore, it addressed the judicial mandate for the expeditious trial of cases involving sexual offenses against children under the POCSO Act

The Court scrutinized the applicant's claim for parity with co-accused Abrar Ansari but accepted the State’s contention that the circumstances were distinct: the co-accused was granted bail because the victim failed to identify him during her court statement, whereas material evidence remained on record against the current applicant

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the second bail application had been dismissed recently (January 6, 2026) and found that no material change in circumstances had occurred since that date

Despite the applicant's defense of alibi via CCTV footage and his period of incarceration, the Court held that the nature of the evidence collected by the prosecution and the gravity of the allegations precluded his release at this stage

However, acknowledging that the applicant had been in jail for nearly a year with only 6 out of 22 witnesses examined, the Court directed the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial within five months from the receipt of the order

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for immediate compliance