HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32887 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.381 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 61(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat. 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 01.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 4499 of 2026. The only new ground on which the applicant is seeking enlargement of bail is that the co-accused Madhur @ Kukki has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated16.09.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31591 of 2026. Applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 26.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any new ground, now there is any change in the circumstances or the law, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 it has been held by the Apex Court Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Vimal Kant Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gunjan Yadav Pravesh Dhama .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 6. 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." 7. 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. 8. In the present case, the applicant has not taken any new ground, either based on change in circumstances, or any substantial change in law. The grounds raised by the applicant are similar, those were taken at the time of earlier bail rejection order. No case is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail. 9. Hence, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. September 18, 2026 Mini BAIL No. 32887 of 2026 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad