Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1312 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.06.2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 Raj Chander Negi ...Petitioner versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Corams Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Pyare Lal, IO PS Rickongpeo, HP. 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. 34 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Reckong-Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) 2. It is asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant wanted to construct a gate on the stairs, and when the masons were constructing the gate at about 2:00 pm, the petitioner and his wife, Chander Bhagti, came out of the house and started quarrelling with the informant. The petitioner went inside the house and brought a gun, and fired gunshots. The allegations in the FIR are exaggerated due to the enmity. The petitioner had acted in self-defence. The gunshot had not hit any person, and the petitioner had fired the gun to safeguard himself and his wife from imminent danger to his life. The petitioner had only objected to the construction of the iron gate by the informant. The dispute regarding the land, where the gate was being erected, was pending adjudication in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Reckong Peo at Kinnaur. The petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2024. He filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur on 07.08.2024. He filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1919 of 2024 and was dismissed on 16.10.2024. The petitioner filed a special leave petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed on 06.01.2025. The petitioner was given the liberty to file a fresh bail petition in 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) case no reasonable progress was achieved in the trial within 12 months despite the cooperation of the petitioner or due to any change in the circumstances. The accused Chander Bhagti was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur on 10.05.2024. The petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, but his petition was dismissed on 24.05.2025. The petitioner has undergone one year and one month incarceration. He is suffering from various ailments. His prostate has increased from 92cc to 105cc, which is affecting his kidneys. The petitioner underwent an operation at IGMC, Shimla. He has severe pain in the legs due to osteoarthritis and a fracture in the major bone. His pre-trial detention would be punitive; therefore, 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 police received information on 12.04.2024 at 3:46 PM that there was gunfire in village Purbani. The police party reached the spot and found three women lying in an injured condition. They were taken to the hospital. Sheetal Negi, informant, made a statement before the police that her brother, Nitesh Negi, was to be married w.e.f. 17.04.2024 till 20.04.2024. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) The informant and her younger sister visited their home on 11.04.2024. A gate was to be erected on the stairs on 12.04.2024. When the gate was being erected, the petitioner and his wife came out of their home and obstructed the construction of the gate. The petitioner and his wife started arguing with the informant and her family members. The petitioner's wife pushed the iron gate, which fell on the maternal aunt of the informant. The petitioner went inside and came out with the gun. He shot Krishan Leela in her stomach. When the informant tried to take care of injured Krishan Leela, the petitioner fired at Sweety Rani, the informant's sister. She sustained injuries to her neck. The petitioner fired at the informant's mother, but she escaped. The petitioner shot Bharti, who suffered injury to her left leg. The petitioner searched for the informant and her mother, but they concealed themselves, however, the petitioner saw the informant's mother and fired at her. Kalpana dragged the informant's mother, and she was saved. The petitioner searched for the remaining persons with the gun. The petitioner's wife was pointing out various people to the petitioner. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The gun was seized and sent to SFSL. As per the 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) report, the cartridges recovered by the police could have been fired from the gun seized from the petitioner. The lead residue was detected on the gun. Bharti Devi remained admitted to the hospital w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 27.04.2024. Sweety Rani remained admitted to the hospital w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 18.05.2024, and Krishan Leela remained admitted w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 28.07.2024 at IGMC, Shimla. The petitioner had shot at his sisters, his sister-in-law and his nieces. Krishan Leela had sustained serious injuries in the perineal region and is unable to walk. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence. FIR No., 36 of 2008, FIR No. 43 of 2008, FIR No. 31 of 2012 and FIR No. 1 of 2007 were registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted, however, FIR No. 92 of 2023 dated 18.09.2023 is pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur for consideration of charge on 16.07.2025; hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur and Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) 5. Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner is a senior citizen who is suffering from various ailments. He underwent surgery for the prostate. This is a change in the circumstances, and the continuous detention of the petitioner would affect the petitioner’s health; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that there is no change in the circumstances. The petitioner is being provided the medical care in IGMC, Shimla. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Court after the expiry of 12 months, in case no reasonable progress was achieved in the trial despite the petitioner and the co-accused duly cooperating with the trial. The period of 12 months has not expired; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 18398 of 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal on 06.01.2025 and observed: “However, the trial court is encouraged to expedite the trial. If, within the next 12 months, there is no reasonable progress achieved in the trial despite the petitioner and the co-accused duly cooperating with the trial court or there is any change in circumstances, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court.” 9. It is apparent from the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the petitioner was provided a liberty to approach the Court if there is no reasonable progress achieved in the trial within 12 months despite the cooperation of the petitioner and the co-accused or any change in the circumstances. It has not been asserted that there is no satisfactory progress of the trial; hence, the petition does not fulfil the first condition. 10. It was submitted that there is a change in the circumstances. 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 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) 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 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.” 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) 11. The bail petition does not mention that the petitioner did not have the enlargement of the prostate at the time of the passing of the earlier order. It merely mentions that the prostate has increased from 92cc to 105cc, clearly showing that the petitioner suffered from the enlargement of the prostate earlier. Hence, this fact does not constitute a change in circumstances. 12. It was submitted that the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. The case was false, and an exaggerated version was projected before the police. All these documents are not available to the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the dismissal of the earlier petition. The petitioner has to show the change in the circumstances, and the plea taken by him regarding the merits of the case cannot be adjudicated while deciding the present bail petition. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner has undergone surgery, and this is a change in circumstance. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The record shows that the petitioner was stable at the time of the discharge. The wound was healthy, and the petitioner was advised to maintain personal hygiene. He was provided medicines on 01.06.2025. Ms. Parul Negi, learned 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has undergone surgery and he requires care from his family members. Putting the petitioner in jail will compromise his health. She prayed that at least an interim bail should be granted to the petitioner. This prayer appears to be justified. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had undergone a recent surgery, and was advised to maintain personal hygiene which may be difficult in the jail, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail for six weeks subject to his furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court undertaking to abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:20109 ) will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/ WhatsApp/ Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. (VI) The petitioner will not contact the informant party/victim/injured directly or indirectly in any manner during the pendency of the interim bail. (VII) The petitioner will surrender after the expiry of six weeks to the Superintendent of the Jail from which he is released. 14. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 15. 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 27th June, 2025 (saurav pathania) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.06.27 12:14:26 NPT