Allahabad High Court
PRAVESH DHAMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The second bail application was rejected as there was no substantive change in circumstances or law.
Summary
Pravesh Dhama, charged under Sections 109(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. in Binauli police station, filed a second bail application after his first was rejected. He argued that the co-accused Madhur @ Kukki had been granted bail, and asserted that he is a law‑abiding citizen who would not misuse liberty. The State opposed the bail, and the court found no new factual or legal ground distinguishing this application from the earlier one. Citing Supreme Court decisions that successive bail applications are permissible only upon a substantial change in facts or law, the court held that the applicant’s claim of the co‑accused’s bail does not constitute such a change. Consequently, the second bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether a second bail application can be entertained without a material change in facts or law.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused constitutes a sufficient ground to grant bail to the applicant.
Subjects
- bail
- successive bail applications
- change in circumstances
- criminal procedure
- Section 109 B.N.S.
- Section 61 B.N.S.
- Article 21
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32887 of 2026
Pravesh Dhama
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Vimal Kant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gunjan Yadav
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
BAIL No. 32887 of 2026
2
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
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…