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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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