( 2025:HHC:18134 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 788 of 2025. Reserved on: 27.05.2025. Date of Decision: 06.06.2025. Sumit Jaswal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/State: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 277 of 2023, dated 1.11.2023, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 384, 324, 326, 327, 120B, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. It has been asserted that Harpreet Singh made a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) complaint to the police on 31.10.2023 that an unknown person had fired at his car. The police reached JSB Rest House and recorded his statement. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The story put forth by the prosecution is not plausible. The petitioner was falsely implicated. He was arrested on 10.11.2023, and since then, he has been in judicial custody. The police have filed the challan, but no charges have been framed till date. The delay is not attributable to the petitioner. There is nothing to connect the petitioner to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No.1202 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No.2354 of 2024; however, these petitions were dismissed by the Court. The petitioner is a local resident and has deep roots in the society, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The police filed a status report stating that Harpreet Singh-informant had made a complaint regarding firing at his car on 31.10.2023 by some unknown persons. The police recorded the informant’s statement, who stated that he, Pankaj, Mani and 3 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) Abhi were sitting in the Dhaba on 31.10.2023. A call was received at 7:35 pm from an unknown number. The caller identified himself as Mani Rana and demanded ₹11 lakhs to get out of jail. He also demanded ₹1.5-₹2 lakhs from the informant. The informant expressed his inability to pay any money. The caller threatened to get him killed. The call was disconnected. 3. The informant again received a call from the same number, but he did not pick up the call. The petitioner, Sumit, had told the informant about Mani Rana and facilitated their contact. The informant asked petitioner Sumit why he had shared the number of the informant with Mani Rana. Sumit advised him (the informant) to run away. He also called Abhi Chandel, the nephew of the informant, and asked him to advise the informant to run away. Abhi told this fact to the informant. The informant was going to the Pandoga Police Post to report the matter. When his car reached near the Puri Kitihall at about 9:00 PM, 2-3 shots were fired at the car. The informant noticed two masked persons riding a motorcycle, who had shot at his car. Mani disclosed that he had suffered an injury from a gunshot on his finger. 4 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) 4. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police found that Sumit Jaswal and his friend Lakhwinder alias Abhi had absconded. The police found that they were in touch with each other and were together on 31.10.2023 at the place of the incident. A Special Investigating Team was constituted to carry out the investigation. The police arrested Lakhwinder Singh, who revealed the involvement of Bansh Raizada. Lakhwinder disclosed that Bansh Raizada had gone with his friend Ayush on his motorcycle to Bulabari Chowk, Hoshiarpur, at the instance of Sumit Jaswal. Ten live cartridges were handed over to them by an unknown person, which were handed over by Bansh Raizada to Lakhwinder Singh. Lakhwinder Singh handed them over to Sumit Jaswal. Sumit Jaswal handed them over to the shooters, who used them to fire at the informant’s car. 5. Bansh Raizada had also taken a photograph of the motorcycle and sent it to Sumit Jaswal. The police arrested Bansh Raizada, who disclosed that he had brought the cartridges from Tashu Sidhu from Bulabari Chowk and had handed them over to Lakhwinder Singh. Bansh Raizada also disclosed that he had brought the bike and parked it on the road. He sent the 5 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) photograph to Sumit Jaswal. Police Arrested Bansh Raizada. The shooters were identified as Satinder Pal and Lavdeesh Sandhu. 6. The shooters had practised and prepared the video of the shooting on their mobiles. The shooters were wearing masks during the incident and could not be identified by the informant. Bansh Raizada made a disclosure statement and identified various places. Lakhwinder Singh also made a disclosure statement and identified some places. Police also arrested petitioner - Sumit Jaswal, who identified the place where the shooter Lavdeesh Sandhu had practised firing, but no cartridge was recovered from that place. The police arrested Lavdeesh Sandhu, who also disclosed various places, and got recovered a mobile. 7. Tashu Sidhu was also arrested because he had handed over the cartridges to Bansh Raizada. Police seized the motorcycle. The police found after perusing the call details record that accused Mani Rana had talked to Sumit Jaswal, Lakhwinder, Ranjot and Akash using a mobile number registered in the name of Manpreet; however, Manpreet could not be traced. Mani Rana had also talked to Lakhwinder. The call 6 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) details record of Sumit Jaswal shows that he was in touch with Lakhwinder and Bansh Raizada. His location was also found to be at Bulabari Chowk, Hoshiarpur. Sumit had also talked to the informant. Sumit Jaswal is the nephew of the informant. He had put the informant in touch with Mani Rana. He was in touch with the other accused. He had sent Bansh Raizada to Bulabari Chowk. 8. The mobile phones were sent to RFSL, and the result of the analysis shows that the mobile phone of Sumit had the video of Samnal Chowk. It also had another video showing Lakhwinder and Sumit in a vehicle. They were shooting the video of the cartridges. The report of the RFSL shows that the pistol recovered from the accused was used for firing, and the cartridges could be used for firing from the pistol. 9. Sumit Jaswal is the main conspirator. The petitioner has committed an organised crime. He has not disclosed the names of other persons who are yet to be arrested. FIR No. 220 of 2021, dated 22.12.2021, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 326, 325, 324, 148, 189, 397, 482, 212 and 216 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Shahkot, 7 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) Punjab. FIR No. 213, dated 4.8.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Haroli. The petitioner can influence the witnesses in case of release on bail. The co-accused can harm the petitioner in case of his release on bail. The news item was published on 04.07.2024, regarding the threat advanced to Harpreet Singh by Sumit Jaswal. The informant is living in fear. Hence, the status report. 10. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Divya Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 11. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The allegations in the FIR do not constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. The charge has not been framed in the present case, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Therefore, 8 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 12. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is the main conspirator. He has criminal antecedents. He would threaten the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 13. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 14. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1202 of 2024, which was dismissed on 8.7.2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 2354 of 2024, which was dismissed on 29.11.2024, by the Court on the ground that the petitioner is the main conspirator and he was in touch with the other accused. It was held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed: “Once that application was rejected, there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the 9 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence. 'Between the two orders, there was a gap of only two days, and it is nobody's case that during these two days, drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed, reversing all earlier orders, including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation. In such cases, it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. 15. Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, wherein it was observed: - 8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking a review of the earlier judgment, which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments. 16. Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to 10 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) consider the rejection of the earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was held: “11. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected, there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration, if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent bail application should be granted.” 17. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed: 9. When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons, and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. 18. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was observed: 30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for the 11 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds, which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. 19. It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstances, which means a change in the facts or the law. It was observed: 7. It needs to be noted that the right to file successive bail applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for filing subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstance. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on the merits, if available at the place of sitting. There needs to be clarity between the power of a judge to consider the application and a person's right based on a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstance creates in a person accused of an offence the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognised principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be 12 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of Court's time and that judicial discipline requires that such matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available, for orders. The satisfaction of material change in circumstances needs to be adjudicated by the same Judge who had earlier decided the application. Therefore, the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.” 20. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 21. It was submitted that the charge has not been framed so far and the right to speedy trail of the petitioner is being violated, however, the copies of the order sheets were not filed to show that the delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail because of delay in the progress of trial. 22. The status report also shows that a news item regarding the threat to Harpreet Singh @ Dhillu was published in the daily newspaper “Dainik Savera”. This, prima facie, shows that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses, in case of his 13 ( 2025:HHC:18134 ) release on bail, and the release of the petitioner on bail will affect the fair trial, in the present case. 23. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 24. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 06th June, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)