Changed Circumstance for Bail Not Shown in Second Bail Application, with delay and prior knowledge of evidence proving insufficient.

A second bail application was rejected because no changed circumstance was shown. Allegations about the investigating officer, seized bitcoin, screenshots and the proffer statement were found not to amount to a fresh ground for the applicant; the concerns mainly related to a co-accused, and the email concerning the proffer statement was already within the applicant's knowledge when the earlier bail request was decided. The Court also noted that delay in trial is relevant only in assessing the gravity of the offence, and observed that the applicant's own conduct had contributed to the delay. On that basis, the application was not fit to be allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second bail application disclosed any changed circumstance warranting release on bail.

Analysis: The applicant relied on allegations concerning the investigation, the handling of seized bitcoin, the use of screenshots, the proffer statement, and the delay in trial. The Court held that the allegations regarding the investigating officer primarily related to the co-accused and did not constitute a change of circumstance for the applicant. The email concerning the proffer statement was already within the applicant's knowledge when the first bail application was decided and when the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that delay in trial is a relevant consideration only in the context of the gravity of the offence, and further observed that the applicant's own conduct had contributed to delay in the proceedings.

Conclusion: No changed circumstance was made out, and the second bail application was not fit to be allowed.

---