Trial Court cannot grant bail on the same grounds previously rejected by a Superior Court absent a material change in circumstances.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a Subordinate Court can grant bail after the superior Court has rejected the same prayer, without a material change in the fact-situation?

The court held

The Court answered that the Trial Court cannot overrule the superior Court's rejection without fresh material grounds

It also directed

The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order dated 28.03.2026, and cancelled the bail of OP No. 2. OP No. 2 was directed to surrender within one week, failing which the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, must secure his arrest. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within six months

01Facts

The petitioner (informant) challenged the order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City, granting regular bail to Opposite Party No. 2 (Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav)

p. 1

The deceased, Rajiv Ratan Gupta, was shot dead on 08.10.2024 during a morning walk

p. 2

It was alleged that OP No. 2, motivated by a land dispute, orchestrated a contract killing by paying an advance of Rs. 5,000/- to assassins

p. 3

While the trial was underway and six witnesses had been examined, the Trial Court granted bail on grounds of parity with co-accused Dharmendra Kumar, the accused's physical disability (65%), and the duration of custody (approx. 17.5 months)

pp. 11-12

Crucially, the High Court had previously rejected OP No. 2’s bail applications twice (13.05.2025 and 26.09.2025), noting his five criminal antecedents and threats made to the informant's family

p. 5, 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether a Subordinate Court can grant bail after the superior Court has rejected the same prayer, without a material change in the fact-situation?

p. 12 / para. 15

ii.2. Whether the Trial Court’s order was perverse for extending parity where the roles of the accused were dissimilar and for ignoring the accused's criminal history?

p. 14 / para. 16

03Law Applied

Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding bail cancellation

p. 1

State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989), establishing that judicial discipline requires a "material and substantial change" in facts for a lower court to grant bail after a superior court’s rejection

¶ 37

Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. (2022) regarding the annulment of bail orders that ignore relevant materials like criminal antecedents

¶ 33

Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014), which holds that parity cannot be applied mechanically if roles are distinct

¶ 34, 45

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103 Section 61

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25 Section 26 Section 27 Section 35

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

04Reasoning

The High Court reasoned that the Trial Court’s order was legally unsustainable as it failed to identify any "material change" in circumstances since the High Court’s last rejection on 26.09.2025

¶ 42-43

The High Court observed that the Trial Court essentially sat in review of superior court orders, which violates judicial propriety

¶ 44

The Trial Court’s reliance on parity with Dharmendra Kumar was found perverse because OP No. 2 was the primary conspirator (the "supari-giver") and the only person named in the F.I.R., whereas Dharmendra was not named and had a lesser role

¶ 46

Furthermore, the Trial Court ignored the accused's five criminal antecedents (which had been suppressed in the bail petition) and the pending case of witness intimidation (Alamganj P.S. Case No. 1109 of 2024)

¶ 42, 49

The High Court also criticized the Trial Court for conducting a "mini-trial" by weighing evidence and call records at the bail stage

¶ 48