Successive bail applications warrant rejection when no new ground for reconsideration is shown.

The applicant was arrested on 2 January 2024 in connection with Crime No. 116/2023 registered at Police Station Pakhanjore, District North Bastar Kanker, for offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6(5) and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with her husband and other co-accused, operated Biva Nidhi Limited, induced villagers to deposit money, collected approximately ₹1 crore, and thereafter closed the company.

Investigation materials, including the company’s constitutional and incorporation documents, allegedly showed the applicant to be a director of the company.

The State further alleged that ₹3,38,100 and ₹48,18,800 were transferred from the company’s account to the applicant’s account.

This was the applicant’s eighth bail application. Her first and sixth applications had been rejected on merits, while the second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh applications had been dismissed as withdrawn.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of collecting deposits from villagers and transferring substantial company funds to her account.

Whether the eighth bail application could be allowed in the absence of any new ground after earlier bail applications had been rejected on merits or withdrawn.

Whether prolonged custody, the anticipated length of the trial, and the grant of bail to a co-accused constituted sufficient grounds for release on bail.

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

The Court also applied the principle governing successive bail applications that a subsequent application must ordinarily disclose a substantial change in circumstances or a new ground warranting reconsideration, particularly where an earlier application has been rejected on merits.

It considered the allegations under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6(5) and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005.

The Court found that the allegations against the applicant were serious and concerned the collection of approximately ₹1 crore from poor villagers.

The investigation materials allegedly established that she was a director of Biva Nidhi Limited and that substantial sums had been transferred from the company’s account to her personal account.

These circumstances materially distinguished her case from that of co-accused Vivekanand Mondal, whose bail was considered in the context that no money had been transferred to his account.

Although the applicant relied on prolonged custody, the large number of witnesses, and the co-accused’s release, the Court held that no new ground had been shown for reconsidering the earlier rejection of bail.

Consequently, the successive application did not warrant a fresh exercise of discretion under Section 483 BNSS.

In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged status as a company director, the substantial transfers to her account, and the absence of a new ground after the earlier merits-based rejection, the application for regular bail was dismissed.

No bail relief was granted.