Successive bail cannot be granted absent changed circumstances or a newly established ground.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 137/2025 registered at Police Station Urla, District Raipur, for offences under Sections 74 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 2 July 2025, the applicant removed the pants of the complainant’s six-year-old daughter and laid her near the gate with the intention of outraging her modesty; the incident was allegedly witnessed by a neighbour who slapped the applicant.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits on 6 November 2025, while his second application was dismissed as withdrawn on 3 February 2026.

In the third bail application, he relied on the hostile testimony of alleged eyewitnesses and an independent witness, the Patwari’s admission regarding preparation of the spot map, the non-appearance of the victim and complainant despite 23–24 hearing dates, absence of criminal antecedents, and custody since 4 July 2025.

The State opposed bail, relying on the gravity of the allegations involving a six-year-old child and the rejection of the first bail application on merits.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the third bail application.

Whether the alleged delay in trial, hostile witnesses, and prolonged custody constituted a material change in circumstances or a new ground warranting reconsideration of bail after rejection of the first application on merits.

Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences involving a six-year-old child justified rejection of bail notwithstanding the grounds urged by the applicant.

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

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 74 and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The Court applied the settled principle governing successive bail applications that, where an earlier bail application has been rejected on merits, a subsequent application must demonstrate a material change in circumstances or a genuine new ground; mere repetition of grounds is insufficient.

The Court also considered the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offence, the age of the victim, and the progress of the trial in deciding whether discretionary bail should be granted.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant relied on developments during trial, including hostile witnesses, the Patwari’s evidence, the non-examination of the victim and complainant, and the period of custody.

However, it held that these circumstances did not amount to a sufficient change in circumstances or a new ground, particularly because the first bail application had been rejected on merits and the second had only been withdrawn.

Weighing the alleged sexual offence against a six-year-old child and the gravity of the accusations, the Court concluded that the grounds based on delay in trial and custody did not justify exercise of the power under Section 483 BNSS in favour of the applicant.

It held that there was no material change in circumstances or new ground after the earlier rejection on merits, and that the age of the victim and gravity of the alleged offences militated against release on bail.

The trial Court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.