Bail on successive applications denied where no real change in circumstances existed and witness tampering risks remained.

Successive bail applications under Section 439 were rejected where the applicants showed no real change in circumstances despite examination of three prosecution witnesses. The Court treated the allegations as grave, noted that the trial was at a crucial stage with most witnesses still to be examined, and found that these factors outweighed any reliance on partial evidence having been recorded. The apprehension that the accused could tamper with evidence or influence or threaten witnesses further supported refusal of bail. Bail was declined and the petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the face of successive bail applications, the gravity of the , and the apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The petitioners relied on the examination of three prosecution witnesses to contend that circumstances had changed, but the Court found no real change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail. It held that mere recording of some prosecution evidence does not by itself justify bail where the allegations are grave, the trial is at a crucial stage, and most witnesses are yet to be examined. The Court also took note of the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing or threatening witnesses, which weighs against enlargement on bail.

Conclusion: Bail was declined and the petitions were dismissed.

---