( 2025:HHC:22340 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1333 of 2025 Reserved on: 01.07.2025 Date of Decision: 10.07.2025 Gurvinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 267 of 2016, dated 23.08.2016, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 354-D, 120-B, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, i.e., Cr.MP(M) No.331 of 2025, which was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) dismissed by this Court on 2.4.2025 on the ground that the petitioner had absconded during the proceedings and was declared a proclaimed offender on 20.6.2023. He was arrested on 19.10.2024 and since then he has been in custody. The statement of the victim was recorded on 29.3.2025. She has made certain admissions in her deposition, which make her statement highly doubtful. The prosecution has made a false case against the petitioner. He has been detained only on presumption, and there is no legally admissible evidence against him. FIR No.219 dated 10.11.2006 and FIR No.07 dated 5.1.2007 were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police, stating that she came in contact with Sagir Ali. He proposed to marry the victim. He called the victim on 21.9.2015 and demanded ₹7.00 lacs to settle the case filed against him. The victim transferred ₹1,70,000/- as per the directions of Sagir Ali. Sagir Ali visited the victim on 18.10.2015 and took ₹1,30,000/- from her. He married 3 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) the victim on 12.3.2016. He took her to Zirakpur and dropped her off at her maternal home. He did not contact the victim. The victim made inquiries and found that the real name of Sagir Ali was Gurvinder Singh (present petitioner), who was already married. The petitioner had taken ₹3.00 lacs from the victim by making misrepresentations to her. The petitioner did not appear before the Court, and he was declared a proclaimed offender on 20.6.2023. The police arrested him on 19.10.2024. The petitioner remained absconding for eight years, and he was arrested after much effort. He would abscond again in case of his release on bail. FIR No.219 dated 10.11.2006 and FIR No.07 dated 5.1.2007 were registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. 5. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The victim admitted in her statement recorded before the Court that she had solemnized marriage with 4 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) the petitioner and the allegations made by her regarding rape and sexual harassment do not survive. Other offences are not serious enough to justify the pre-trial detention of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had absconded earlier and was declared a proclaimed offender. He was apprehended by the police after eight years. The petitioner is likely to abscond again in case of his release on bail. The offence against the petitioner is heinous; hence, he 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. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.331 of 2025 titled Gurvinder Singh Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and the same was dismissed on 2.4.2025. 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 5 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) 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. 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 6 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) 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. 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 7 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) 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.” 8 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) 13. 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. 14 It was submitted that the statement of the victim makes the prosecution's case highly doubtful. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she had solemnised a marriage with the petitioner. Hence, the allegations of the commission of offences punishable under Section 375 and 354-D will not survive. 15. It is impermissible for this Court to look into the statement of the victim recorded during the Trial. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of the trial and grant bail because of some discrepancy in the testimony. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just 9 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only if the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 16. Similarly, it was held by this Court in Suraj Singh v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 268 that the Court exercises bail jurisdiction cannot appreciate the contradictions in the evidence. It was observed: 10. Petitioner has placed reliance on the statements of witnesses already recorded by the learned Special Judge, in support of his argument to the effect that, from perusal of these statements, reasonable grounds can be entertained for concluding prima facie innocence of the petitioner. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be rejected for the reason that this Court, while dealing with the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence being recorded during the trial. Undisputedly, only some of the witnesses out of the entire list of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have been examined. In these 10 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) circumstances, it is not prudent to form any opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the petitioner on the basis of such partial evidence. 17 Therefore, it is impermissible to look into the evidence led before the learned Trial Court while considering the present bail petition. 18. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the delay. This submission has to be accepted as correct. The status report shows that the petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2024 and was produced before the Court on 20.10.2024. Balwinder Singh, co-accused was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rape and POCSO, District Sirmaur, H.P on 27.3.2024. The trial has not concluded after the expiry of about eight months. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for about eight months, the further detention of the petitioner is not justified. 19. The victim has been examined, and there is no apprehension that the petitioner is likely to influence other witnesses. 11 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) 20. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 concerned Police Station and the 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 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. 21. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the 12 ( 2025:HHC:22340 ) investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 22. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 23. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order will be sent to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 24. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th July 2025 (mamta) Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA Date: 2025.07.10 19:19:47 NPT