IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2972 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Date of Decision:23.01.2026 Irfan Mohd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Peeyush Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 145 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 333, 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated because of political rivalry. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner was beaten, and he had sustained multiple injuries. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Harpal Chaudhary and Vikram were present in the informant’s house on 01.07.2025. Vikram had met with an accident, and his leg was plastered. His friend Surjeet, Vaibhav, Vishal, Sunil and Anas Khan had visited the informant’s house to inquire about Vikram’s well-being. All of them were talking to each other. Five people armed with sticks and an iron rod came to the house at 5:40 pm. They had covered their faces. They gave beatings to the informant and other persons. The informant party shouted for help, and the villagers gathered on the spot. One person, who identified himself as Irfan (the present petitioner), was apprehended. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. The police registered 3 the FIR and investigated the matter. Irfan revealed during the investigation that Sandeep, Nigam, Adil, Ashu and Sohail Khan were involved in the incident. Police arrested Sohail Khan. He revealed during interrogation that he had handed over his motorcycle bearing registration no. HP17C-0390 to Adil. Adil, Irfan, Ashu, Sadakat, Sandeep and Nigam drove two motorcycles to the spot. They returned at about 6:30 pm and revealed that Irfan was apprehended on the spot. FIR No. 190/2023, dated 02.12.2023, is registered against the petitioner in Police Station Kala Amb. As per the report of the medical officer, the injured had sustained grievous injuries. The chargesheet was prepared and presented before the learned Addl. Session Judge, Paonta Sahib on 27.09.2025. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of similar offences and intimidate the witnesses, in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Kush Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4 5. Mr Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner has roots in society, and he would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Mere pendency of the criminal case is no reason to deny bail to a person. He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay @ Sonu Singh (2024 INSC 404) and Abhimanue Vs. State of Kerala (2025 INSC 1136) in support of his submissions. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Dy. Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the Court, and the subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has failed to establish any change in the circumstances; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.2335 of 2025, and was dismissed on 27.10.2025. It was held in the State of Maharashtra. 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 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. 6 9. 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 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.” 10. 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.” 7 11. 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 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.” 12. 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 circumstances. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law that 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 8 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 a 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 recognized 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 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.” 13. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered on the basis of the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. The Court had earlier held in the bail petition that there was sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. His plea that he was beaten by the villagers and was falsely implicated was prima facie not acceptable, and he was not entitled to bail. All these considerations have not changed. 9 15. It was submitted that a charge sheet has been filed, and this is a change in circumstance. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406: (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 542: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 295 that the filing of a charge sheet does not amount to a change in circumstances. It was observed: “12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the fact that when a charge sheet is filed, it amounts to a change of circumstance. Needless to say, the 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 after due investigation, the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the accused persons.” 16. It was submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner that he had acted in the right of his private defence is highly probable. This plea has already been found to be not established by the Court in the earlier petition and cannot be adjudicated afresh in the present case. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1520: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1070 that it is impermissible to review the earlier order of bail in the subsequent bail petition, 10 and the Court can only consider the change in circumstances. It was observed on page 676: 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 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. 17. Therefore, it is impermissible to review the earlier order passed by this Court. 18. The burden of proving that the case of the accused comes with the exception is upon him as per Section 108 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Thus, the proof of the exception is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated based on the FIR registered after the registration of the present FIR. 19. It was submitted that the criminal antecedents are not sufficient to deny bail to a person. The submission will not help the petitioner. This Court dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents while granting bail in Champa vs. State of H.P.: 2025:HHC:28899 and held that the criminal antecedents 11 would disentitle an accused from the concession of bail, especially when an FIR was registered against the accused related to the commission of a similar offence. This judgment was unsuccessfully assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) 19120 of 2025 titled Champa Devi vs. State of H.P., decided on 27.11.2025. Therefore, the relevance of criminal antecedents cannot be ignored, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents would disentitle him from concessions of bail. 20. In Abhimanue (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere criminal antecedents cannot be used to deny bail to a person who has made out a case for the grant of bail, and when the period of incarceration justified the grant of bail. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of bail, and the cited judgment will not help him. 21. In Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay @ Sonu Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the High Court had rightly granted bail, and mere criminal antecedents were not sufficient to deny bail to the person. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime, and in view of the judgment in Champa (supra), it is not permissible to grant bail 12 to the petitioner because of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner; hence, the cited judgment will not help the petitioner. 22. No other point was urged. 23. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 24. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Vacation Judge 23rd January, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)