NAVED MALIKversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31511 of 2026

Naved Malik
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhishek Tiwari, Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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 :
                                                                                               BAIL No. 31511 of 2026
                                                                      2

                                    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.


                                                                                                 (Harvir Singh,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Faridul




Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad