( 2025:HHC:26227 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1684 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.07.2025 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 Lakhwinder @ Lucky ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 150 of 2022, dated 27.10.2022, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Manpura, District Solan, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. He has been arrested along with the other co-accused. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) He filed a bail petition earlier for the marriage of his sister, which was allowed. As per the prosecution, deceased Harbhajan Singh @ Bunty was found missing on 26.10.2022 at about 08:45 pm. A search was made for Harbhajan Singh @ Bunty, and his dead body was found at Doduwala Chowk in the bushes. There were multiple injuries on his body. As per the investigation, the deceased had a friendly relationship with Bhupinder Kaur @ Anu Chaudhary, who developed a relationship with Inderpreet Singh. However, the deceased continued to call Bhupinder Kaur @ Anu Chaudhary. This led to an enmity between the deceased and Inderpreet Singh. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Charges have been framed, and the trial is continuing before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner had filed a regular bail application before this Court, which was registered as Cr. MP(M) No.52 of 2025, but the same was dismissed by this Court on 25.03.2025. The petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2022, and he has completed more than 2 years and 08 months in custody. The matter was listed on 29.05.2025 and 30.05.2025. However, no witness was present on 29th, and 01 witness was examined on 30.05.2025. The matter has been listed on 01.09.2025 after 04 months. The trial is not progressing, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is 3 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) being violated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. The petitioner was released on interim bail for 15 days, and he has not violated any of his bail conditions. Hence, the petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information that the dead body of Harbhajan Singh @ Bunty was lying in the bushes. The police reached the spot. The informant, Balwinder Singh, made a statement that Harbhajan Singh @ Bunty had gone towards the main road on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12E- 2721 on 26.10.2022 at 08:45 pm. He did not return. Attempts were made to contact him on his mobile phone, but his mobile phone was found to be switched off. A search was made for him, and his dead body was recovered. He was stabbed with a sharp-edged weapon. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. Police also checked the CCTV footage and found that the deceased was talking to Amandeep Singh and Inderpreet Singh. The police arrested them. Petitioner Lucky @ Harry @ Lakhwinder Singh was also arrested. He made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of Gandasi. The police also recovered the petitioner’s clothes, which were sent to FSL, and 4 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) blood was found on the gandasi. However, the blood did not yield any DNA for analysis. The petitioner had murdered Harbhajan Singh @ Bunty with a gandasi. Eight witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 01.09.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The police have relied upon the recovery of the gandasi stated to have been recovered at the petitioner’s instance. However, the blood of the deceased was not found on the gandasi, and the gandasi is not connected to the commission of crime. He submitted that the matter is listed after 04 months, which shows the inability of the learned Trial Court to conduct a speedy trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had filed a bail petition 5 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) earlier, which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in circumstances. The petitioner has not pleaded any change in circumstances, and the present petition is not maintainable without a change in circumstances. 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 undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr. MP(M) No.52 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on 25.03.2025. 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 6 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) 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 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 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) 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 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 8 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) 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 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 blood on the gandasi did not match the blood of the deceased, and the gandasi has not been connected to the commission of the crime. This submission will not help the petitioner. This Court has already considered the submission in the earlier bail petition, and held that the presence of human blood and multiple injuries by sharp-edged weapon on the body of the deceased are prima facie sufficient to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. It is impermissible to review the finding recorded by the Court in the earlier bail petition while deciding a subsequent bail petition because doing so would constitute a review of the order, which is impermissible. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 9 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) 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 and the Court can only consider the change in circumstances. It was observed at 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. 15. Therefore, it is impermissible to go into the validity of the reasons assigned by the Court in the earlier bail petition and the submission that the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground that the blood of the deceased was not found on the gandasi is not sufficient to release the petitioner on bail. 16. It was submitted that the matter was listed after 04 months, which shows the inability of the learned Trial Court to conduct a speedy trial. This submission cannot be accepted. The photocopies of the order sheets show that the statement of one witness was recorded on 30.05.2025, and the matter was listed on 01.07.2025 and 02.07.2025. It was submitted that the dates 10 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) 01.07.2025 and 02.07.2025 were wrongly mentioned in the order sheet, and the matter has, in fact, been listed on 01.09.2025 and 02.09.2025. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi, (2003) 6 SCC 573: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 697 that the statement of facts that transpired during the hearing is conclusive and cannot be challenged before another Court. It was observed: 11. The rival contentions need careful consideration. There can be a quarrel with the proposition as submitted by Mr Nariman that if an order records something, a party cannot be permitted to plead to the contrary, especially in matters as to whether there was any concession regarding a point, or whether it was given up at the time of the hearing. 12. The only course open to a party taking the stand that an order does not reflect actual position is to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak [(1982) 2 SCC 463: 1982 SCC (Cri) 478]. In recent decisions, i.e. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 AIR SCW 4939] and Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani [(2003) 3 Scale 611 : (2003) 6 SCC 595], the view in the said case was reiterated. Statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated, and no one can contradict such statements by an affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to a party to contend before this Court to the contrary. This Court cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High 11 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) Court. It is simply not done. Public policy and judicial decorum do not permit it. Matters of judicial record in that sense are unquestionable. However, the Court can pass appropriate orders if a party moves it contending that the order has not correctly reflected happenings in court. 17. This position was reiterated in Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC 519: 2003 SCC (L&S) 1145: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 554, wherein it was observed at page 524: 11. If really there was no concession, or a different stand was taken, the only course open to the appellant was to move the High Court in line with what has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak [(1982) 2 SCC 463: 1982 SCC (Cri) 478]. In a recent decision Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 AIR SCW 4939] the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. 18. Thus, it is impermissible for this Court to record any finding contrary to what has been recorded in the judicial record, and the submission that the matter was listed after 04 months cannot be accepted when the judicial record shows that the matter was listed only after 02 months. 12 ( 2025:HHC:26227 ) 19. The status report shows that the statements of 08 witnesses have been recorded. The examination of 08 witnesses does not show any delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on this consideration. 20. No other point was urged. 21. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 22. 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 05th August 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)