Successive bail applications require fresh grounds or a material change in circumstances before reconsideration is justified.

A successive bail application will not be entertained where the earlier request was rejected on merits and no material change in circumstances is shown. The Court found that the grounds raised in the second application had already been considered, and that additional investigation material, including call detail records, did not justify a different result. It also noted that the revised arrest and bail guidelines under the Customs Act did not assist the applicant. Bail was therefore refused because no fresh grounds warranted reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the repeated bail application deserved to be allowed in the absence of any material change in circumstances.

Analysis: The application was a second bail request after rejection of the earlier bail application on merits. The Court noted that the grounds urged in the present application had already been considered earlier and that no material change in circumstances had been shown. The Court also took note of the additional material collected during investigation, including call detail records, and held that the revised guidelines for arrest and bail under the Customs Act did not assist the applicant. In these circumstances, the Court was not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of grant of bail.

Conclusion: The repeated bail application was not maintainable on the merits shown and bail was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: A successive bail application will not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates a material change in circumstances or other fresh grounds warranting reconsideration.

---