( 2025:HHC:18001 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 825 of 2025 Reserved on: 23.05.2025 Decided on: 06.06.2025 Raman ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent/State: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 42 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, under Sections 302, 201 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “IPC”), registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. 2. The facts, which emerge from the records, can be summarized as under: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) 2(a). On 26.05.2022, around 09:40 a.m., Shri Raj Sharma (complainant) reported to the police that near Barubaag curve, a dead body of some unknown person was lying. Thereafter, the police team rushed to the spot and found a corpse of a lady decayed from neck and face. The face of the corpse was unrecognizable. The police completed all the codal formalities, viz., clicked photographs of the spot, videographed the spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses and apt recoveries were effected. Some tattoos were engraved on the corpse, but it could not be identified and dead body seemed to be of a lady between 35-40 years old. The corpse was sent for postmortem examination at Civil Hospital, Kumarsain, wherefrom it was referred to Forensic Expert, IGMC, Shimla. As per the report of Forensic Experts, the deceased in all probabilities died as a result of asphyxia secondary to ligature compression of neck, however, final opinion was kept pending for want of chemical examination of viscera and vaginal swab. In the postmortem examination report, it was unearthed that the deceased was pregnant and she was murdered by someone by strangulation. 2 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) 2(b). The police, during the course of investigation, checked the records of nearby Hotels, Homestays, Inns and Guest Houses etc.. Police also checked CCTV footages and inquired from the staff of above Hotels, Homestays, Inns and Guest Houses. Despite intensive efforts, police could not get any clue qua the identity of the deceased, therefore, police sent its teams to Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi etc. but the efforts could not yield any result. Lastly, on 13.06.2022, the corpse of the deceased was cremated according to Hindu rites and customs at Shimla. 2(c). Subsequently, police started analyzing dump data of the nearby area, where the corpse was found and on 22.08.2022, a Special Investigation Team was constituted. On 23.12.2022 police received an information from Police Station Indrapuram, Gaziabad, that a lady, who looked like the deceased, was missing and a missing report was lodged in the aforesaid Police Station by Smt. Bitto, who was the mother of that missing lady. Thereafter, Smt. Bitto, recognized the dead body of her daughter Divya, on seeing the photographs of the tatoos on the corpse of the deceased. The petitioner, was 3 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) interrogated and he disclosed that since the year 2019, he was in live-in relationship with the deceased and on 10.11.2020, a daughter was born to them. The petitioner further disclosed that he did not marry the deceased legally and on 03.05.2022, he married one Priti. Thereafter, his relationship with the deceased got deteriorated and on 18.05.2022, he alongwith the deceased and their daughter started to Shimla for trip, in vehicle, bearing temporary registration No. UP14FC-1233, which was registered in the name of his father. The petitioner further divulged that on 19.05.2022, during day time, they reached Narkanda and during the entire journey, he and deceased were quarreling. Near Narkanda curve, the petitioner and the deceased again quarreled and the deceased gave beatings to their daughter, on this, the petitioner strangulated the deceased with the stole of the deceased and threw her dead body in a nallah. Near Shilaru, the petitioner met his uncle Gajraj Singh, Jija Rahul Singh and his sister Rinki, who were asked by the petitioner to come otherwise he would commit suicide. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith his daughter returned to Gaziabad. On 25.12.2022, the petitioner, his uncle Gajraj Singh and Jija Rahul Singh were arrested. 4 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) Subsequently, the police recovered the stole, which was allegedly used by the petitioner for strangulating the deceased, slippers of the deceased and other items. Police prepared the map of the place of occurrence and procured the records of AAA Hotel, Shilaru, wherein the petitioner stayed and it was unearthed that on 19.05.2022, around 01:20 p.m., room No. 106 was got booked by co-accused Rahul Singh. Police got conducted the medical examination of the petitioner and blood samples of the deceased and her mother were sent for DNA profiling to SFSL, Junga. The vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the crime was taken into possession alongwith its documents and key. On 17.02.2023, police interrogated the driver of Taxi No. HR64A-9338, in whose vehicle co-accused Gajraj Singh, Rahul Singh and Rinki traveled to Shimla. Police procured the CCTV footages of the enroute CCTV cameras and the AAA Hotel, Shilaru. As per the police, DNA profiling report revealed that the Smt. Bitto was the biological mother of the deceased and Forensic report showed that in all probabilities the deceased died as a result of asphyxia secondary to ligature compression of neck, homicidal in nature. 5 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) 3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner with the commission of offence and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and the circumstances, so relied upon by the prosecution are not consistent with the hypothesis of guilt that the petitioner alone has committed the offence, as chain of circumstances is not complete. He further submitted that from the testimony of PW-12, the mother of the deceased, the prosecution has failed to establish the motive against the accused. He also submitted that out of total 36 witnesses cited by the prosecution, till date, only 24 witnesses have been examined and the case is now listed for the evidence of the remaining prosecution witnesses on 18/19/20.08.2025, respectively and since the petitioner has remained in custody for the last more than two years and six months, the further detention of the petitioner will amount to pre- trial incarceration and deprive him of his personal liberty, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail. 6 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application. 5. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a bail application being Cr. MP (M) No. 1769 of 2023 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that the prima facie, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature, which dis-entitled him to be released on bail. 6. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain 7 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing the accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail. 7. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no changed circumstances, the successive bail application is nothing but review of the earlier application which cannot be maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. 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 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) and various other judgments.” 8 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) 8. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” 9. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7SCC 528 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “20. "Before concluding, we must note though an accused has a right to make successive applications for 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 what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications………." 10. In Virupakshappa Gouda & another vs. State of Karnataka and another (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that 9 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge- sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge……….” 11. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicates that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which 10 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 12. Now reverting back to the facts of the case on hand. The perusal of the material available on record would reveal that out of total 36 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 24 witnesses have already been examined . After going through the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to release him on bail. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that from the testimony of PW-12, the mother of the deceased, the prosecution has failed to establish the motive against the accused can not be accepted at this stage of deciding the present bail application, as the other material witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined and without appreciating the other evidence on record, it cannot be said that no incriminating material has come on record against the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two years and six months is no ground to grant him bail, as the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature of committing murder of his live-in 11 ( 2025:HHC:18001 ) partner. Moreover, the trial is in progress and as observed earlier, out of total 36 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 24 witnesses have already been examined and the case is now listed for the remaining evidence of the prosecution on 18/19/20.08.2025, respectively and there is every likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future. 13. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the earlier bail application, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 14. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. ( Sushil Kukreja ) June 06, 2025 Judge (raman) 12