2025:HHC:26232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1561 of 2025 Reserved on: 29.07.2025 Date of Decision:05.08.2025. Hussain ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Parikshit Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 278 of 2021, dated 07.12.2021, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the informant, Ram Bir, was the husband of Geeta (since deceased). Geeta told the informant that the petitioner was forcing her to change her religion and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:26232 threatening to kill her in case she did not do so. The petitioner sent a photograph of Geeta to the informant on 04.12.2021 and told him that he had murdered her. The informant went to the hospital and identified the dead body of Geeta. The police registered the F.I.R. and filed a charge sheet before the Court after completion of the investigation. The petitioner has been in custody since 08.12.2021. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of 28 cited by it. The right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. No case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2884 of 2024, and the same was dismissed by this Court on 18.03.2025. There is no progress in the trial. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant was married to Geeta Devi (since deceased). Geeta Devi had gone to Firozpur to earn her livelihood. The informant used to talk to her on her mobile phone. She told the informant that the petitioner Husnain used to force her to become Muslim. She left Firozabad and started working at Baddi. She informed the informant that the petitioner had also visited Baddi. He was compelling her to 3 2025:HHC:26232 adopt the Muslim religion. The informant called his wife, but nobody picked up the phone. Somebody called the informant on 4.12.2021 and told him that he was sending a photograph and that the informant should identify the person in the picture. The informant identified the person in the photograph as his wife. The police registered the FIR. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted, and as per the report of the Medical Officer, the deceased died as a result of sharp force trauma to the neck and major vessels, including the respiratory apparatus, leading to hemorrhagic shock. Police seized various articles. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered the mobile phone. One SIM card issued in the name of the deceased was also found with the petitioner. The petitioner got recovered a knife with which he had committed the murder. The statements of witnesses were recovered as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The statements of eight witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 11.09.2025 and 12.09.2025, respectively. Hence, the status report. 4 2025:HHC:26232 4. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Parikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no progress of trial as only one witness was examined before the Trial Court since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition. The delay is not attributable to the petitioner; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and that the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that there is no delay in the progress of the trial and the statement of one witness has been recorded, since the dismissal of the earlier bail application. The matter is now listed for prosecution evidence on 11.09.2025 and 12.09.2025. Therefore, 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. 5 2025:HHC:26232 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 2884 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 18.03.2025. 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 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 6 2025:HHC:26232 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. 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 7 2025:HHC:26232 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 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 8 2025:HHC:26232 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 based on the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. Perusal of the status report shows that the statement of one witness has been recorded since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition, and the matter is now listed for recording the prosecution witnesses on 11.09.2025 and 12.09.2025. A certified copy of the order sheets shows that the matter was listed on 03.06.2025 and 04.06.2025, and one witness was examined on these dates. The fact that one witness has been examined within three months and the matter is listed in September 2025 does not show any delay in the progress of the trial. 9 2025:HHC:26232 15. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime. He is alleged to have murdered a person, which is punishable by capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the punishment which can be inflicted for the murder, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail. 16. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 17. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 05th August 2025. (ravinder)