Bombay HC: If successive bail applications are filed with no change of circumstances, it is liable to be rejected

Upon careful perusal of the grounds raised in the present application, this Court finds that the contentions raised are repetitive and those were already advanced and considered by this Court and eventually, rejected the same while rejecting the bail BA No.2316.2025 order in earlier application. No fresh reasons have been brought to the notice of the Court justifying reconsideration of the matter to change the view previously taken by this Court. It is rather established principle that the successive bail application must be founded on material with change in circumstance. In absence of such change, the application deserves to be rejected. {Para 21}

22. To secure bail, the applicant must establish that the evidence collected and intended to be presented by the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case of the applicant's involvement in or commission of the alleged offence. Since this necessary aspect has not been satisfied by the applicant, the applicant is presently disentitled to claim the bail. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2316 OF 2025

SHUBHAM NARAYAN WAGH Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

Date : 5th December, 2025

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:36563

Print Page

Supreme Court: Order Granting Bail In Second Round Must Record Change In Circumstances Or Fresh Grounds

While there is no absolute bar against a High Court

granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled

by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons

demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence

of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of

cancellation. {Para 24}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). _____ OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.16696 of 2025)

MOHSEEN  Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

& ANR. 

Author: NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 526.

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Print Page

J & K HC: Whether a person accused of the offence of rape can be released on bail subsequently on the ground of change of circumstances if the main prosecution witnesses who are examined do not support the prosecution's case?

It is pertinent to mention here that after the dismissal of second bail application of the petitioner, statements of four more prosecution witnesses have been recorded. Therefore, there is a change in circumstances since the dismissal of second bail application of the petitioner. {Para 6}

7) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that from the statements recorded during trial of the case, the prosecution version against him is not proved. It has been further contended that only on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence his bail application cannot be rejected, particularly when, prima facie, the offence for which he has been charged is not made out against him. It has been contended that the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the trial court while rejecting the bail applications of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about two years and all the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, there is no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

13) After having gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly statement of the prosecutrix, her mother and grandfather, there appears to be prima facie merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Although at the stage of considering the plea of bail, a meticulous analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution is to be avoided, yet, for the limited purpose of deciding this bail application, it does appear that the sexual intercourse alleged to have been committed by the petitioner upon the prosecutrix, who was major at the relevant time, appears to be consensual in nature. Therefore, a case for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner is made out. The learned trial court, while rejecting earlier bail applications of the petitioner, has not considered the evidence led by the prosecution even for the limited purpose of deciding the bail applications and has mechanically rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Bail App No.91/2025

BASHARAT AHMAD BHAT  Vs.  UT OF J&K 

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

Pronounced on:19.12.2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, filing of chargesheet amounts to change of circumstances for the purpose of deciding bail application?

The powers conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are wide enough to grant bail. There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 439 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. The dominant criteria is whether there is any change of circumstance and the change should be substantial and not merely cosmetic. Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., an accused gets documents relied upon by the prosecution as of right. He is thus better equipped to address the Court and invite the Court to examine the evidence after filing of the chargesheet from his point of view and to point out lacunas, if any, in the investigation, which could be fatal to the prosecution or sufficient enough to convince the Court that there exists reasonable grounds for, prima facie, believing that the applicant has not been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Until filing of the chargesheet one of the important fact that weigh on the mind of a Judge is the continuity of investigation and whether the investigation will be hampered if the accused is set at large. However, after filing of the chargesheet, this approach changes and the Court, apart from merits of the case, requires to consider whether the accused should be continued in custody even after the investigation is over. This change, in the approach of the Court after filing of the chargesheet towards evaluating the need of keeping the accused in custody, should be termed as substantial change. It is open for the Court to take similar view which was taken while rejecting earlier application for bail made before filing of the chargesheet. However, in my opinion, it is not open for the Court to hold that filing of the chargesheet is not a substantive change of circumstance and refuse to enter into merits of the case. The Court is obliged to consider merits of the case afresh by allowing the applicant or his advocate to argue an application for bail on the basis of documents supplied to the accused with the chargesheet as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. {Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 2816 of 2004

Decided On: 15.07.2004

Laxman Irappa Hatti and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.B. Bhosale, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0422/2004,2004(4) MHLJ 415,

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should grant bail to accused as chargesheet is filed which amounts to change of circumstances?

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the Accused persons. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2017

Decided On: 28.03.2017

Virupakshappa Gouda and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

Citation: 2017 AIR(SC)1685, MANU/SC/0344/2017.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The Session Judge should not allow successive bail application if there is no substantial change in circumstances

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed orders in two bail applications within two weeks. First was rejected, expressing an opinion that injuries were serious, and second was allowed, observing that the injuries were simple. Once the bail is rejected before filing the charge sheet, the second application is not entertained unless there are substantial changes in circumstances. The investigation is complete on submission of the charge sheet/report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On reading two orders from the same Judge in the same crime, refusing and allowing bail application, the Court is of the view that it amounts to a review of the previous order of the same Court. Under the criminal law, the review is impermissible. After the first bail application was rejected, there were no substantial changes in circumstances to exercise the powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Application For Cancellation of Bail No. 36 of 2024

Decided On: 02.07.2024

Khan Awez Ahmed Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Mehare, J.

Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:13067, MANU/MH/4036/2024

Print Page

Under which circumstances can the court set aside temporary injunction order granted after hearing both parties?

The order which has been vacated by the Trial Court is an ad interim order and not a temporary order on injunction which had been adjudicated upon by the Trial Court after hearing the parties in its proper perspective. Order XXXIX Rule (4) reads as under:

"4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside.-

Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:

Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in an affidavit supporting such application a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interest of justice:

Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting side has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party."

16. A perusal of the above would go on to show that the order of injunction may be discharged or varied or set aside by the Court on an application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. The proviso further provides that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application, a party knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular whereby the temporary injunction was obtained by way of false and misleading statement and the same was granted without notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction. Similarly, the second proviso further provides that the injunction order can be set aside in changed circumstances or in case of causing undue hardship to a party.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1857-2020, CR-1858-2020 and CR-1859-2020

Decided On: 03.09.2020

Ravinder and Ors.  Vs.  Gram Panchayat, Damla and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

Citation: MANU/PH/0787/2020

Print Page

Whether second transfer petition is maintainable after dismissal of first petition on merits?

Therefore, the present petition for transfer cannot be opposed

solely on the ground that the earlier petition was dismissed. But at the same time, the petitioner will have to satisfy the court that there are change of circumstances and that there are sufficient grounds made out.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2344 OF 2019

AMRUTA BEN HIMANSHU KUMAR SHAH  Vs HIMANSHU KUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH 

Dated: January 29, 2021

Print Page

Whether subsequent bail application on grounds which were available at time of previous application is maintainable?

 It is thus well settled principle of law that successive bail

application can be entertained only when there is substantive change in fact situation or circumstances during the period between the two applications. The embargo on filing repeated bail applications on the same facts is to ensure some degree of finality to the order passed and to maintain judicial discipline and propriety.

12. The present application is not filed on the ground of change in circumstance but bail is sought on grounds, which were already available at the time of filing of the previous bail application. Such application would not be maintainable as it would virtually amount to review of the previous order.

13. It has to be borne in mind that when the Court decides the bail

application, it is deemed to have gone through the records and

considered all the relevant aspects of the case. Furthermore, the Court deciding the bail application is not required to give elaborate reasons. The only requirement is that the order should be reasoned order. Hence, the mere fact that some of the grounds which were available were not raised in the previous application or that the said grounds are not reflected in the previous order would not justify entertaining subsequent bail application. Suffice it to say that entertaining repeated prayers for bail on grounds which were already available or allowing another counsel to advance fresh arguments on the same facts would be against judicial discipline and propriety and will encourage abuse of process of law. Hence, we are not inclined to reconsider the merits of

the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1301 OF 2018

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2015

Ashok Pundalik Gavade Vs The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, AND

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

Dated : 30th JANUARY, 2019.

JUDGMENT (PER SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI. J.) :

Print Page

Whether terms of lease can be proved on basis of unregistered lease agreement?

The defendants have nowhere admitted that the lease was for a specific term of nine years. On the contrary, they have pleaded that they were tenants holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was clearly inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, except for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The documents Ex. B-2 was admissible under the proviso to Section 49 only for a collateral purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The proviso to Section 49 was however not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the terms of a lease are not a "collateral purpose" within its meaning. It follows that the unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was inadmissible in evidence to prove the transaction of lease. It was also ineffectual to create a valid lease for a renewed term of nine years for want of registration as required under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 10041 of 1983

Decided On: 27.10.1998

Satish Chand Makhan  Vs.  Govardhan Das Byas 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Sen and E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.
Citation: AIR 1984 SC 143

Print Page

Whether a party can seek modification of child custody order in absence of change of circumstances?

It is contended by the appellant that all custody orders, by their very nature, are temporary and that therefore, they are capable of being modified.

15. We have no doubt that custody orders are only temporary in nature, capable of being modified at any time. But there is a procedure to be followed for modification. Whenever a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act is disposed of finally, the same puts a seal on all questions that arose up to that date. But if there are subsequent developments or changes, which made one party eligible and the other ineligible for custody or guardianship, a fresh main petition may be maintainable. In such an event, the final order passed in the first main petition cannot be treated as res judicata, since the question relating to the interest and welfare of the children is always in a state of flux, depending upon the variation in parameters. Let us take a hypothetical case. If after the disposal of a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, one of the parents had suffered a disqualification or had undergone some kind of a change in his or her financial or family or mental status, the same would give rise to a fresh cause of action for filing a fresh Original Petition. But it will not give a right to one of the parties to seek a modification of the order passed in the main petition by filing an interlocutory application in the disposed of case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

F.C.A. No. 189 of 2017

Decided On: 20.04.2018

Ahmed Mohiuddin  Vs. Shabana Yasmeen

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Ramasubramanian and N. Balayogi, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2018 Hyderabad 150

Print Page

Whether accused has right to make successive bail application?

 Before concluding, we must note that though an Accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1448 of 2017

Decided On: 21.08.2017

 Prasad Shrikant Purohit  Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 11 SCC458

Print Page

Whether filing of chargesheet can be treated as change of circumstances entitling accused to be released on bail?

 On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial
Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that
when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of
circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does
not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the
prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet
establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency,
having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of
the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned
trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the
appellants had moved the special leave petition before this
Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it
noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal
Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was
challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this
Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of
by the learned trial Judge. He has been swayed by the
observations made in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra),
especially in paragraph 86, the relevant part of which reads
thus:-
“The courts considering the bail application should
try to maintain fine balance between the societal
interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to
the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be
innocent till he is found guilty by the competent
court.”
14. The proposition expounded above, has to be accepted,
but that has to be applied appositely to the facts of each case. A
bail application cannot be allowed solely or exclusively on the
ground that the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found
guilty by the competent court. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2017

VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA 
 V
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 
Dated:March 28, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1685

Print Page

Orissa HC: A subsequent bail application by the accused on the grounds of a change of circumstances may be considered if there is a change in the factual situation, a change in the law, or if the earlier finding has become obsolete.

Law is well settled that an accused has a right to

make successive applications for grant of bail but successive bail

applications are permissible under the changed circumstances.

The change of circumstances must be substantial one which has

a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic

changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the

change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application

would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection

order which is not permissible under criminal law. While

entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a

duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier

bail applications were rejected and what are the fresh grounds

which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of  the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which the application for bail of an accused that has been rejected earlier can be reconsidered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

BLAPL NO. 854 Of 2015

An application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

 Deepak Gupta  V State of Orissa.

P R E S E N T:- MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

 Date of order- 28.03.2016

Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL482

Print Page

Whether successive anticipatory bail application is maintainable without establishing change of circumstances?

 

Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (AIR 2005 SC 921) considered the legality and

propriety of successive bail applications.         Relevant portion is quoted



hereunder:

                     "19.The principles of res judicata and such

              analogous principles although are not applicable

              in a criminal proceeding, still the Courts are

              bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having

              regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our

              country. The findings of a higher Court or a co-

              ordinate     bench     must      receive    serious

              consideration    at  the   hands    of   the  Court

              entertaining a bail application at a later stage

              when the same had been rejected earlier. In such

              an event, the courts must give due weight to the

              grounds which weighed with the former or higher

              court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily,

              the issues which had been canvassed earlier

              would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the

              same grounds, as the same it would lead to a

              speculation and uncertainty in the administration

              of justice and may lead to forum hunting.

                     20. The decisions given by a superior

              forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate

              fora on the same issue even in bail matters

              unless of course, there is a material change in the

              fact situation calling for a different view being

              taken. Therefore, even though there is room for

              filing a subsequent bail application in cases where

              earlier applications have been rejected, the same

              can be done if there is a change in the fact



              situation or in law which requires the earlier view

              being interfered with or where the earlier finding

              has become obsolete. This is the limited area in

              which an accused who has been denied bail

              earlier, can move a subsequent application.

              Therefore, we are not in agreement with the

              argument of learned counsel for the accused that

              in view the guaranty conferred on a person under

              Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to

              the aggrieved person to make successive bail

              applications even on a ground already rejected by

              courts earlier including the Apex Court of the

              country."

       19.     In the light of the principles of law stated in the binding

precedent by the Supreme Court, there cannot be any doubt that

successive bail applications without showing any change in the fact

situation or circumstance requiring the invocation of the extraordinary

jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Sessions under Section 438

Cr.P.C. can only be regarded as an abuse of the process of court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                        PRESENT:

                             MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                  THURSDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

                             Bail Appl..No. 5958 of 2015 ()
                                                

     VINEETH, S/O.VIJAYAN, Vs STATE OF KERALA
            Citation;2016 CRLJ 533 Kerala

Print Page

Whether divorced wife who has voluntarily surrendered right to claim maintenaince can claim maintenaince u/s 127 of CRPC on proof of change in circumstances?

Under Section 127 of the Code, even though a divorced women had voluntarily surrendered to claim maintenance from her divorced husband on proof of change in the circumstances, she can maintain a petition under Section 127 of the Code, and as long as the divorced wife has not been remarried and or not living in adultery, husband cannot shirk from his responsibility to maintain a divorced wife. Section 127 can be pressed into service only for cancellation of maintenance ordered in favour of a wife under Section 125 if she had voluntarily surrendered her right to claim maintenance from the divorced husband while obtaining a divorce. But the same cannot be made applicable to a divorced woman who is claiming maintenance considering the changed circumstances in her life.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1588 /2010

 Dr. Shahid Rizwan Khan 

v e r s u s

 Dr. Smt. Masoor 

CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE , J.

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 7/7/ 2011

Print Page