Successive bail applications can only be considered upon a substantive change in circumstances, and violation of the right to be informed of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) renders arrest illegal.

ORDER :

1. Accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.145/2024 of Nandagudi Police Station, Bangalore Rural District registered for offences punishable under Sections 103 , 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (3), 61(2), 45 of BNS , 2023 are before this Court in this successive bail petition filed under Section 483 of S, 2023 seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.145/2024 was registered by Nandagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, initially for offences punishable under Sections 103 , 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 351 (3) of BNS , 2023 against Mahaboob Khan and six others, based on the first information report dated 08.07.2024 submitted by Afreed Khan, son of deceased Afak Khan.

4. Petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in the FIR. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 was arrested on 09.07.2024 and accused No.3 was arrested on 19.09.2024. After completing investigation charge sheet has been filed against 7 persons and petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3 in the charge sheet. Their bail application was rejected by the Jurisdictional Sessions Court and therefore accused No.1 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3483/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.03.2025 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, accused No.1 had filed a fresh petition in Criminal Petition No.4649/2025 claiming regular bail on medical grounds and the said petition was dismissed by this Court on 12.06.2025. The accused No.1 is therefore before this Court in this successive petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS , 2023 seeking regular bail.

5. Accused No.3 had earlier approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.1688/2025 which was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025. Under the circumstances, he is before this Court in this successive bail petition.

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that grounds of arrest was not served on the petitioners herein immediately after their arrest and therefore in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 , Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another , (2025) 5 SCC 799 and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India , (2024) 7 SCC 576, the petitioners herein are entitled for bail as their custody becomes illegal. He submits that though the petitioners are before this Court in this successive bail application, since the aforesaid ground was not urged in the earlier bail petitions, there is no bar to entertain this petition. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya in Robinus Ripnar vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr. in BA No. 38/2025 disposed of on 26.08.2025. He further submits that even if the earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court can entertain a successive bail application on a ground which was not urged in the earlier bail application and in support, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Majeed vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 10830/2022 disposed of on 16.01.2023.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP for the Respondents submits that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court only if there is any change in circumstance, after the earlier bail application was rejected. No such change in circumstance has been pointed out by petitioners in the present case. The ground now urged before this Court was very much available to the petitioners when