ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. Over the past decade, India has witnessed a concerning rise in sexual offences, particularly targeting women who are socially physically vulnerable, including those with intellectual disabilities. These crimes often occur in secluded or isolated areas, highlighting the heightened risks faced by such individuals. The physical and psychological trauma caused by these offences is profound, with victims frequently requiring extensive medical and psychiatric care. 2. The vulnerability of certain groups, combined with the pervasive social stigma surrounding sexual assault, underscores the seriousness of these crimes. Many victims are unable to effectively report offences or provide accurate statements due to their mental or physical conditions, complicating efforts to ensure justice. The patterns of such offences, including assaults at night, in isolated locations, or involving multiple offenders, reveal a pressing need for societal awareness, preventive measures, and strict enforcement of existing laws to protect the dignity and safety of women across the state. Factual matrix of the case: 3. This fourth application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) preferred by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0019/2022 registered at Police Station Khamera, District Banswara for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. 4. As per the prosecution, on 10.01.2022, the SHO of Police Station Kharnera received information that an unknown woman had been forcibly subjected to sexual assault at night in Ghatol town. To verify the information, an officer was sent to the place of incident, and upon examination of CCTV footage, the SHO was called to the spot. The CCTV footage revealed that inside a building under construction located on Banswara-Pratapgarh main road, at approximately 2:45 A.M., a man forcibly caught the woman from behind, threw her down, and subjected her to sexual assault. The victim attempted to resist, hitting with her hands and legs, but the assailant overpowered her. Footage from a neighboring shop showed two persons arriving on a motorcycle, one of whom committed the assault while the victim was picking bricks and stones at the site. Following this, the police conducted an extensive search in Ghatol town but were initially unable to apprehend the offenders. Thus, a case for offences under Sections 376-D/34 and 458 IPC was lodged against unknown persons. 5. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and arrested on 25.06.2022, and thereafter, was sent to judicial custody. Following this, the police conducted an extensive search in Ghatol town but were initially unable to apprehend the offenders. Thus, a case for offences under Sections 376-D/34 and 458 IPC was lodged against unknown persons. 5. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and arrested on 25.06.2022, and thereafter, was sent to judicial custody. The investigation in the matter has revealed that the victim is an intellectually challenged lady. The mental illness report of the victim by a senior psychiatrist and specialist has been produced on record, which reveals that the victim is suffering from mental illness and is currently undergoing treatment and medication and after examination of mental level of the victim, it has been found that she is incapable of giving a valid legal statement before Court. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person who has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion and no concrete evidence is available on record against the present petitioner. 7. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years and 6 months and the trial against him has not even reached the half way mark. The investigation in the matter has already been completed and no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner. The statements of material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing them, in case he is enlarged on bail by this Court. 8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in Judicial custody since 25.06.2022 and the delay in trial is not attributable to the present petitioner and custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is no required in the present case. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioner. Submissions on behalf of the respondent: 9. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application, highlighting the heinous nature of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioner. Submissions on behalf of the respondent: 9. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application, highlighting the heinous nature of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner falls under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, which prescribes severe punishment, and that enlarging petitioner on bail at this stage could jeopardize the interest of justice, including the safety and well-being of the victim, the integrity of the investigation and the trial of the petitioner. Therefore, this bail application deserves to be rejected straight away. Analysis of Arguments Advanced and Observation: 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 11. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of an extremely grave and heinous nature. 12. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the offence alleged involves sexual assault upon an intellectually challenged woman, who, by reason of her mental condition, falls within the category of the most vulnerable section of society. The CCTV footage collected during investigation, as noticed hereinabove, prima facie corroborates the prosecution version regarding the manner, time and place of occurrence. At this stage, this Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence; however, the available material cannot be brushed aside lightly while considering a bail application in a case of such seriousness. 13. This Court further finds that the victim is an intellectually challenged woman, as is evident from the reports as made available on record, which clearly states that she is incapable of giving a valid legal statement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that victims belonging to vulnerable categories, including persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, are entitled to enhanced protection under the law. Sexual assault upon such victims strikes at the very core of human dignity and bodily autonomy, which are integral facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that victims belonging to vulnerable categories, including persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, are entitled to enhanced protection under the law. Sexual assault upon such victims strikes at the very core of human dignity and bodily autonomy, which are integral facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The inability of the victim to effectively articulate her trauma or defend herself places a corresponding higher duty upon the Court to ensure that the majesty of law is upheld and that the criminal justice system does not fail those who are least capable of protecting their own interests. 14. This Court has carefully considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding prolonged incarceration/custody and delay in trial. Undisputedly, the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, however, the said right cannot be pressed into service as an absolute rule for grant of bail in cases involving grave and heinous offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav , (2004) 7 SCC 528 , has clearly held that long incarceration by itself cannot be a decisive factor for grant of bail in serious offences and observed as under: "It is trite that the grant of bail is not to be automatic merely because the accused has undergone a long period of incarceration. The seriousness of the offence and the interest of society are relevant considerations." Further, in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi , (2005) 8 SCC 21 , the Apex Court held that while considering bail, the Court must take into account the nature and gravity of the accusation and the impact of the crime on society. In the present case, the allegations pertain to sexual assault upon an intellectually challenged woman, committed during late night hours at an isolated place. The gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission and the extreme vulnerability of the victim clearly outweigh the period of custody undergone by the petitioner at this stage. 15. Further, this is the fourth bail application filed by the petitioner. No substantial change in circumstances has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the rejection of the earlier bail applications, which may persuade this Court to take a different view. 15. Further, this is the fourth bail application filed by the petitioner. No substantial change in circumstances has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the rejection of the earlier bail applications, which may persuade this Court to take a different view. It is a settled principle of law that successive bail applications can be entertained only upon demonstration of a substantial change in circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (Supra) has authoritatively held: "When a bail application is rejected, there must be a substantial change in the fact situation or in law before a subsequent bail application is entertained." 16. Similarly, in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar , (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Supreme Court emphasized that in serious offences, particularly those involving sexual violence, courts must exercise greater circumspection and avoid a liberal approach in bail matters. In the present case, no new circumstance, either factual or legal, has been pointed out which may persuade this Court to take a view different. Entertaining the present bail application would, therefore, amount to re-appreciation of the same grounds already considered and rejected, which is impermissible in law. The Apex Court observed: "The seriousness of the crime, the manner in which it is committed, and the impact of the crime on society are relevant considerations which must weigh with the Court while granting or refusing bail." Conclusion: 17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage would not be in consonance with the interest of justice. The offence alleged is grave, the victim is exceptionally vulnerable, and no change in circumstances has been demonstrated to warrant interference. Grant of bail in such circumstances would not only undermine the confidence of the victim in the justice delivery system but would also send an adverse message to society at large. 18. Keeping in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, the vulnerability and mental condition of the victim, the material available on record, the absence of any change in circumstances, and the settled principles governing grant of bail in serious offences, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 19. 18. Keeping in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, the vulnerability and mental condition of the victim, the material available on record, the absence of any change in circumstances, and the settled principles governing grant of bail in serious offences, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 19. Consequently, the present fourth bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is hereby dismissed. 20. It is, however, made clear that the observations made/findings recorded hereinabove are strictly for the purpose of adjudication the present bail application and the trial court shall not shall not get prejudiced from the same.