Successive Bail Requires a Substantial Change in Circumstances Affecting the Earlier Assessment

The applicants sought regular bail in FIR No. 31/2020, P.S. K.N. Katju Marg, concerning the death of Rohan, whose body was recovered from a canal on 26 January 2020.

The chargesheet was filed under Sections 364/392/302/34 IPC, and both applicants had remained in custody since January 2020, apart from Anshu Kumar’s brief interim release.

The prosecution relied on witness Satyawan’s account identifying Anshu as the motorcycle’s driver and Ankit as its rear passenger, with the deceased seated between them, and on recovery of the deceased’s purse and identification documents following Ankit’s disclosure.

A Coordinate Bench had rejected Anshu Kumar’s previous bail application on 25 August 2025.

In the present applications, the applicants relied, among other things, on FSL material and a subsequent medical opinion concerning drowning, as well as their length of custody and examination of material witnesses.

1. Whether the FSL material and subsequent medical opinion constituted a material change in circumstances warranting a different decision on the successive bail applications.

2. Whether the applicants’ prolonged custody and the examination of material witnesses justified granting bail.

The applications arose from charges under Sections 364/392/302/34 IPC.

Under Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42, a successive bail application may be entertained where a change in facts or law warrants departure from the earlier decision; issues already considered ordinarily cannot be re-agitated on the same grounds, and courts must give due weight to the earlier decision.

State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, requires a substantial change in circumstances with a direct impact on the earlier decision, not a merely cosmetic change.

Under Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70, prolonged custody is a relevant consideration, but must be balanced against the interests of society and the other circumstances of the case.

The Court found that the FSL report and medical opinion pre-dated the previous bail decision and, in any event, did not materially alter the prima facie assessment.

The opinion that drowning may have caused death did not undermine the prosecution’s allegation that the applicants took the deceased to the canal and pushed or threw him into it; the Court therefore considered drowning consistent with the prosecution case.

The last-seen account and the recovery of the deceased’s purse following Ankit’s disclosure continued to support the prosecution’s circumstantial case against both applicants.

The Court found no material change since the earlier order and held that lengthy custody alone did not justify bail, given the need to balance individual liberty with the interests of society.

It requested the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and gave the applicants liberty to apply again after six months if sufficient progress was not made at trial.