A second regular bail petition is permissible without statutory prohibition, but must demonstrate substantial change in circumstances; the severity of allegations influences bail considerations.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

1. The present second petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0066 dated 26.03.2024 registered under Sections 323 , 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:

“ Complaint is an under, SHO Police Station Matlauda. Respected Sir, my name is XXXX and I was married at Village XXXX, one boy from Village XXXX came to my house whose name is XXXX he came to my house in a relation of brother and sister but after sometime he kept wrong eve on me. He gave me sleeping pills and took my pictures and after that he started blackmailing me and made physical relation with me and also called me outside. My husband was admitted in Rehab Centre and remain alone at my house and with this reason he takes advantage of me when denied to meet him outside and also stopped him to enter my house then on 10th of March at night he jumped into my house and had done forcefully and gave beatings to my 14-year-old daughter and to me. On 11th of March again he called me outside of the house but i again refused for the same then on 24th of March he again came to my house after jumping from the wall and he was in drunken condition, when he saw that I was going to call my family then he jumped out from my house. On same time I called at 112 and also giving threatening that he will commit suicide. I year 2022 is sold my paddy crop of Rs.85,000/- and thus same also took by him. Legal action be taken against him. SD/- xxxxx”

3. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of regular bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.09.2024. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action with better particulars.

Ordered accordingly.”

Thereafter, the present petition i.e. the second petition for grant of regular bail has been preferred by the petitioner on 04.02.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that in the initial complaint, based on which the present FIR was registered, there is no mention of the petitioner having taken any obscene pictures of the complainant. However, during the recording of the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C., an improvised version was given wherein the complainant alleged that the petitioner had taken obscene pictures. It has been further iterated that the petitioner has blackmailed the complainant by showing certain photographs, allegedly taken after administering sleeping pills to her. However, no medical examination of the victim as regarding administering any intoxicating substance has been got conducted. Furthermore, during investigation, no such material was found on the mobile phone of the petitioner which suggests that any such incident as alleged has occurred. According to the learned counsel, a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that there is no mention of the specific time-line in which the petitioner allegedly committed any wrongful act or took any obscene photographs. It has been further submitted that the complainant is a habitual offender and has a history of making similar allegations against different persons as earlier also she has implicated her brother-in-law under the similar set of allegations. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged crime and his implication in the instant case is a clear misuse of the legal process. Furthermore, the allegations are concocte