T Mallikarjuna Rao, J
1. This is the 2nd Crimminal Petition, under sections 480 andd 483(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) [prevviously filed under section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C.,] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking regular bail in P.S.C.No.3 of 2024 before the Court of Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POCSOO Act 2012, Nellore (Cr.No.35/2023 of Balayapalli Police Station).
2. The above crime waas registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC and section 6 r/w 5(j)(ii)(l) of POCSO Act 2012.
3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the victim girl was aged about 13 years. She used to attend bhajana and kolatam classes run by the Petitioner. As such, the victim girl got acquaintance with the Petitioner. Taking advantage of the same, the Petitioner used to visit the victim girl’s house during temporary absence of her inmates. Petitioner made victim girl to believe him with his deceitful words and sexually assaulted the victim girl repeatedly since October, 2022 and made her pregnant. When asked by her parents, the victim girl has informed the same to her parents and then they gave report.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that previously, he filed bail applications viz., Crl.P.No.2263 of 2024, and the same were dismissed by this Court on 25.04.2024. The Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2023; since then, he has languished in jail. The entire investigation has been completed, and a charge sheet has also been filed and thus, the question of tampering of witnesses does not arise. Therefore, he respectfully prays for the grant of bail to the Petitioner.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.
6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced.
7. As seen from the record, the Defacto Complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 13 years of age. It is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on the victim girl while she used to attend bhajana and kolatam classes run by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is shown to be aged about 35 years.
8. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner have previously undergone comprehensive scrutiny during the preceding bail application, culminating in its dismissal by this Court. Hence, the same contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and the findings of this Court do not need to be reiterated. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserts that the case is now slated for trial. At this crucial juncture, the potential for intimidation of the Victim and witnesses cannot be disregarded.
9. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.06.2023, enduring significant mental anguish and stress throughout the past fourteen months of judicial remand. The Petitioner vehemently denies the Prosecution’s case, asserting that the charges are false, fabricated, and driven by ulterior motives.
10. In the previous bail order, specifically Crl.P.No.2263 of 2024, this Court noted that the DNA report contravenes the Petitioner’s assertions, unequivocally indicating that the Petitioner is the biological father of the female child of the Victim girl. Apart from a mere reiteration of arguments presented in the earlier bail application, this current application does not introduce any new contentions that would indicate a significant change in the circumstances of the case.
11. As already noted, this is the second regular bail application filed on behalf of the Petitioner. It is well settled in law that successive bail applications cannot be entertained unless there has been a substantial change in the circumstances of the case.
12. In this context, it is pertinent to refer the decision in Rahul Malik vs.State of Himachal Pradesh MANU/HP/1377/2020, wherein the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that:
Needless to say that after dismissal of a bail petition, the bail petitioner, in a succeeding petition, has to successfully show before the Court, the change in the circumstances. It is well settled that the accused has a right to maintain successive bail petitions under changed circumstances and the change in the circumstances must be substantial having direct and consequential impact on the previous decision, whereby the bail was denied. The change(s) in the circumstances must not be trivial or cosmetic having no significance or of little or no consequence. It is also well settled that without substantial change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail petition would be merely review sought to the earlier petition, which was rejected, and such review is not permissible under the law. It is the duty of the Court to consider all the reasons and grounds whereupon the earlier bail petition was rejected and what are the fresh grounds worth consideration and ultimately warranting evaluation of fresh bail petition and leading the Court to take a divergent view from that of the earlier view rejecting the petition. There must be change in fact situation or in law, compelling the Court to take different view. Thus, the Court has a narrow area to reconsider the successive bail petition and this narrow area is only change in circumstances.
13. In Jogia @ Jogendra Jena Vs. State of Odisha MANU/OR/0450/2017, the High Court of Orissa held that:
"Successive bail applications are maintainable but there has to be material change in the fact situation and not mere cosmetic change. Successive bail application on the same grounds which were available to the accused at the time of consideration of the earlier bail application would not be maintainable. Neither a ground that the earlier bail application was not properly placed by the previously engaged counsel can be entertained."
14. As noted in the aforementioned decisions, in successive petitions, the Petitioner must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that directly impacts the prior denial of bail. In absence of such a substantial change, a subsequent bail application amounts to a mere review of the earlier petition.
15. The material on record indicates that there have been no changes in the circumstances since the previous bail application. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the Petitioner’s second regular bail application.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
