Bail may be granted despite prior rejections if substantial changes in circumstances arise, including the completion of investigation and charge framing.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. The Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.5, challenging the impugned order dated 05.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1611/2025 in Spl.S.C.No.28/2025, rejecting her bail application.

2. The appellant is accused of the offence under Sections 103(1) BNS, 61 r/w 238(a) r/w 103(1) BNS, Section 3(2)(v)(vi) of the SC/ST Act and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

3. (i) The case of the prosecution as per the final report is that the victim/deceased aged about 16 years was staying in the house of the 1^st and 2^nd accused and working as a domestic help; that the victim was found dead at the bedroom with injuries all over her body on 01.11.2024; and that a case in Cr.No.652 of 2024 for the offence under Section 194 BNS was registered by the respondent.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that during the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the 2^nd accused and his friend/3^rd accused, had repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assaults on the victim girl; that the 1^st and 4^th accused, who are the wives of the 2^nd and 3^rd accused, respectively, were not initially aware of the acts of 2^nd and 3^rd accused; that thereafter, the 1^st accused on coming to know that the victim was close to her husband and the 3^rd accused, informed the 4^th accused about the conduct of the 3^rd accused; that the victim was thereafter subjected to severe harassment by the 1^st and 4^th accused; that one week prior to the occurrence when the victim refused to have sexual intercourse with the 2^nd accused, he had attacked her on her chest, thighs and other parts of the body; that since the victim was subjected to severe harassment, the victim was not permitted to leave the house for about one month before the occurrence; that the appellant/5th accused who was working as a servant maid in the said house had instigated the other accused and she actively assisted them in causing injuries to the victim on the date of occurrence (i.e.,) 31.10.2024, which resulted in the death of the deceased.

(iii) The appellant had filed bail applications before the trial Court. One of the bail petitions filed in Crl.MP.No.456 of 2025, came to be dismissed on 08.04.2025. The appellant had challenged the said order before this Court in Crl.A.No.501 of 2025, which came to be dismissed on 25.07.2025. The appellant had challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.14284 of 2024, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.09.2025. The appellant thereafter filed an application for bail in Crl.MP.No.1611 of 2025 before the trial Court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 05.11.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is in custody from 02.11.2024; that after the earlier dismissal of the bail application, the respondent have filed the final report and the charges were also framed by the Court on 09.12.2025; that the trial is about to commence; that co-accused viz., 6^th accused [Seema Begum] was granted bail by this Court in Crl.A.No.1172 of 2025 on 14.10.2025; that the appellant was only working as a house maid and she is the sole breadwinner of the family, who has to support her aged mother and her son; and considering the nature of the evidence against her, the change in circumstances and the period of incarceration, prayed that the appellant may be released on bail.

5. (i) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) per c