HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31511 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, P.S. Cyber Crime, District Kanpur Nagar and is in jail since 7.1.2026, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 10011 of 2026. The new ground on which the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail through this application is that after rejection of first bail application of the applicant, similarly placed other co-accused Raghav Rohila has later on been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.7.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24311 of 2026. He next submitted that chargesheet in this case has been filed and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the same. He lastly submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of aforesaid co- accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon the following case law :- (i) In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao : Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naved Malik .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 it has been held by the Apex Court that once a bail application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. Granting it would be virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. A substantial change is one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. 5. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kajad : (2001) 7 SCC 673 has held that although successive bail applications are permissible but under changed circumstances. It has been held as under :- “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.” 6. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan : (2005) 2 SCC 42 has held that subsequent bail application can be filed if there is a change in the fact situation or law which would render the previous view obsolete. The Court rejected the argument that successive bail application can be filed on a ground already rejected by courts earlier and it would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any new ground or any substantial change in the circumstances or the change in law for enlarging the applicant on bail, hence, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. September 8, 2026 Faridul BAIL No. 31511 of 2026 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad