Unsubstantiated trial delay, without order-sheets, does not justify second bail after merits rejection.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Range Cyber Crime, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 61, 317(5), 318(4), 111(3), 111(4) and 323 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, during investigation into a mule bank account, the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre informed the Cyber Cell that several bank accounts were being used for online fraud, involving alleged transfers of ₹97,83,492 through 82 bank accounts, and that the applicant was involved in the transactions.

The applicant had been in judicial custody since 11 September 2025, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

His earlier bail application, MCRC No. 1985 of 2026, had been rejected on merits on 8 April 2026, with a direction for expeditious trial.

In the present second bail application, the applicant relied on prolonged custody, absence of substantial progress in the trial, the fact that no prosecution witness had been examined, and bail granted to certain co-accused persons.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged role in operating or facilitating a mule account, and the absence of any fresh or substantial ground after rejection of the first bail application.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite his earlier bail application having been rejected on merits?

2. Whether prolonged incarceration, filing of the charge-sheet, the alleged non-examination of prosecution witnesses, and bail granted to co-accused constituted sufficient changed circumstances or fresh grounds for granting second bail?

3. Whether the applicant’s assertion regarding delay in trial could be accepted in the absence of the relevant trial-court order-sheets demonstrating the actual progress of the proceedings?

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

It also considered the offences alleged under Sections 61, 317(5), 318(4), 111(3), 111(4) and 323 of the BNS.

The governing principle for a second bail application is that, particularly where the earlier application was rejected on merits, bail should not ordinarily be granted in the absence of a fresh, substantial, or materially changed circumstance.

A claim of delay in trial must be supported by reliable material demonstrating the actual status and progress of the proceedings; a bare assertion, without the relevant trial-court order-sheets, is insufficient by itself.

The Court acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant claimed prolonged custody and non-examination of prosecution witnesses.

However, the earlier bail application had been rejected on merits, and the present application did not establish a sufficient subsequent change in circumstances.

The allegations concerned the applicant’s alleged operation or use of a mule bank account in online fraudulent transactions involving ₹97,83,492 transferred through 82 accounts, which the Court treated as serious.

Although the applicant relied on alleged trial delay, he did not produce the relevant order-sheets to substantiate that the trial had not progressed or that no prosecution witness had been examined.

Consequently, the Court declined to treat the unsubstantiated assertion of delay as a sufficient ground for second bail.

The Court therefore gave greater weight to the seriousness of the allegations, the prior merits-based rejection, and the absence of demonstrated fresh grounds.

It held that, in the absence of the trial-court order-sheets, the applicant’s contention regarding delay in trial could not, by itself, justify release on bail, particularly after rejection of the first bail application on merits.

The trial court was nevertheless permitted and directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.