Failure to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances resulted in the dismissal of a second bail application for serious allegations of gang rape.

O R D E R

This is the second bail application filed under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS ) seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.4 in Crime No.160/2025 of Athirappilly Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 70 (1), 74, 75(1)(i) and 309(1) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’) and Section

66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused Nos.

1 to 4, acting with common intention and premeditation to sexually assault the survivor and gratify their sexual lust by committing gang rape, on 13.12.2025 at about 21:00 hours, lured the survivor by promising to arrange a rented house for her and thereafter, at about 23:00 hours on the same day, took her to a resort named Greensite at Athirappilly, where she was given water laced with MDMA to drink. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed gang rape on the defacto complainant, while the applicant bit her lips and caught hold of her breasts. Accused No.3 threatened to record the incident on his mobile phone and circulate the same through social media. Accused No.1 robbed a gold chain and a gold bangle, weighing one sovereign each, from the defacto complainant and by committing the said acts, the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention, mutually encouraging and aiding each other. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences. 4. I have heard Sri.Manumon A., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.K.A.Noushad, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on

24.12.2025. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant. The victim was brutally gang raped by the applicant and the remaining accused.

The first bail application was dismissed by this Court considering the grievous nature of the crime and the specific overt act alleged against the applicant. While dismissing the said bail application, this Court has also taken into account the fact that the applicant does not co-operate with the investigation. It is pertinent to note that the first bail application was dismissed as per Annexure A4 order on 02.02.2026. This bail application has been filed on 08.02.2026, precisely after a week. The learned counsel for the applicant, relying on Annexure A6 affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant, submitted that the matter has been settled and the defacto complainant has expressed her no objection in granting bail to the applicant. However, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant has filed Crl.M.C.No.323 of 2026 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against him, wherein a similar affidavit of the defacto complainant was produced. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, who specifically and categorically stated that she was not willing to settle the matter. Accordingly, on 19.02.2026 an order was passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.323 of 2026 that the victim is not willing to settle the matter and adjourned the case to 16.03.2026. Therefore, th