Bombay High Court

NANDU BHAGINATH BORSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

The successive bail application was rejected as it did not demonstrate any change in circumstances or new material facts.

Summary

The applicant, Nandu Bhaginath Borse, filed a successive bail application without attaching the earlier order of rejection or showing any new material facts. The State opposed, noting the lack of disclosure and the principle that a later bail plea must be based on a substantial change in circumstances. The court asked the applicant to demonstrate any such change, but none was provided. The court also held that a mere plea of trial delay cannot justify bail where the offence is serious, citing State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar. Consequently, the application was found to lack merit and was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether a successive bail application can be entertained in the absence of a demonstrable change in circumstances or new material facts.

Subjects

bail
successive bail application
change in circumstances
delay in trial
severity of offence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7751
                                                               Bail Appln.No.237/2026
                                             :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                             BAIL APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2026


            Nandu Bhaginath Borse                           … APPLICANT
                    VERSUS
            The State of Maharashtra                        … RESPONDENT

                                             .......
            Mr. S.G. Bobde, Advocate for applicant
            Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent – State
                                            ....…
                                     CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

                                     DATE     : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026
            PER COURT :


            1.      Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

            APP for the State.


            2.      This is a successive bail application filed by the applicant.

            The learned A.P.P. has opposed the application, this being

            successive Bail Application. There is no disclosure of the same,

            nor the copy of order rejecting earlier application is enclosed.


            3.      It is a well-established legal principle that a subsequent bail

            plea must be predicated on a substantial change in circumstances
                                                     Bail Appln.No.237/2026
                                :: 2 ::


or the emergence of new material facts after the rejection of the

previous application.


4.      When confronted with the learned counsel for the applicant to

demonstrate any such new grounds or change in circumstances,

failed to provide any fresh material or valid justification that would

warrant a reconsideration of the earlier decision.


5.      In the absence of any demonstrable change in the case, and

failure to demonstrate earlier rejection of bail application by this

Court, the application lacks merit and does not warrant further

consideration.


6.      So far as the plea of delay in trial cannot be considered in

isolation, considering the severity of the offence and the potential

punishment, same also does not warrant consideration, as has

been held by the Apex Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Amit

Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751.


7.      In the light of the above, the application does not deserve

consideration, accordingly, the same is rejected.



                                    (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

fmp/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…