Prolonged incarceration justifies reconsideration of bail applications; prior rejections do not prevent courts from reevaluating bail based on changed circumstances.

ORDER :

1. They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

2. This is the fourth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023/ Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.95/2023 registered at Police Station Bhairavgarh District Ujjain for the offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B & 34 of IPC and Sections 7 (C), 13(1)A, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act 2000. The applicant is in custody since 29.3.2023.

3. His first temporary bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2023, passed in MCRC.No.49797/2023. His second regular bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 26.2.2024 passed in MCRC.No.2931/2024 (Annexure P-9) by the coordinate Bench of this Court which was challenged by the applicant before the Supreme Court in SLP Crl.No.6237/2024 which was also dismissed vide order dated 6.5.2024. Whereas, third bail application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.8.2024, in MCRC.No.34552/2024 observing that since the applicant has not sought any liberty from the Supreme Court to renew his prayer before the High Court, this Court cannot entertain the application for regular bail on merits.

4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the order dated 13.08.2024, passed in MCRC No. 34552/2024, the applicant had also preferred SLP (CRL) SLP. (Crl) No.14979/2024 which was decided by the Supreme Court on 5.11.2024, holding that the observation made by this Court that no liberty was sought from the Supreme Court was not in accordance with law, and has also observed that the earlier dismissal of SLP (Crl.) No.6237/2024 filed by the applicant does not prohibit the High Court or the trial Court from adjudicating a fresh bail application in accordance with law, and thus, it is submitted that since the other identically placed accused persons have already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, and that the applicant is lodged in jail since 29.3.2023, and as such has completed almost two years of incarceration whereas only 3 witnesses have been examined out of 115 witnesses despite the fact that the charges were framed on 19.6.2023, and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time, it is prayed that the application be allowed.

5. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the second bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits, also taking into account his criminal antecedent, thus, no case for grant of bail is made out.

6. In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has submitted that so far as the criminal antecedents are concerned out of 18 cases registered against the applicant, he has already been acquitted in 11 cases all of which are of the Gambling Act and other cases are of minor nature. Whereas the co-accused Rinku Singh Mandre, who is facing trial under section 376 of IPC , has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC.No.8345/2024 vide order dated 31.7.2024. The other co-accused Rohit Chourasiya, who had transferred an amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs in the account of the applicant, has already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.2.2025 passed in MCRC No. 36980/2024 ( Rohit Chourasiya Vs. State of M.P. ).

7. Having considered rival submissions, perusal of the case-diary as also the documents filed on record, it is found that the applicant’s second bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court in MCRC.No.2931/2024 vide order dated 26.2.2024,which was challenged by the applicant in Supreme Court in