IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2168 of 2026 SOURABH PATEL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Pramod Singh Tomar - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Vijay Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER This is the fourth application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS/439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.1296/2024 registered at Police Station Panagar, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for commission of offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(1), 3(5), 118(2) and 103 of BNS. The applicant is in custody since 05.11.2024.

Earlier three bail applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Though the Court has indicated to the counsel for applicant to apprise the court what is change in the circumstances in the matter to consider the fourth bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant pursued his arguments by referring to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.726/2025 (Vipin kumar Vs. State of U.P.) decided 13.02.2025, more particularly, paragraph 4 thereof. Paragraph 4 of the said order indicates as under:-

"There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This court in canceling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit."

3. Referring to said paragraph of the order of the Apex Court, it is contended by the applicant that it is a matter of right for the applicant to file bail application afresh and if circumstances permit, such repeated bail application can be filed. He has vehemently argued that this is fourth bail application filed by the applicant and earlier three bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, it cannot be said that those applications were considered on merits. Instead of pointing out what is the change in the circumstances, learned counsel for applicant casually submitted that everyday incarceration of the accused is itself to be treated as change in circumstances and therefore, there is no need to point out any specific change in the circumstances.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any specific change in circumstances. Upon perusing the record, this Court prima facie finds that there are serious allegations against the present applicant as disclosed in the FIR and other papers whereby the offence of murder is alleged to have been committed. Merely being in custody since 05.11.2024 cannot be the sole ground to entertain his repeated bail application. This is fourth bail application, which has been filed without showing any substantial change in circumstances. More particularly, considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that the practice of filing repeated bail applications without any material change in circumstances in such heinous crimes is required to be discouraged. Hence, this is not a fit case where applicant can be enlarged on bail.

5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT)

JUDGE C