2025:HHC:28471 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1787 of 2025. Reserved on: 11.08.2025. Date of Decision: 22.08.2025. Sanjay Kumar ...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. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for regular bail, in FIR No. 18/2022, dated 16.01.2022, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the accused took the deceased to his room on 16.01.2022, at about 5:00 pm. The deceased did not return to his room. The informant went in search of the deceased and found him lying under the bed. His dead body was covered with a bedsheet. The police registered the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:28471 FIR and conducted the investigation. The police filed a charge sheet before the learned trial Court on 30.03.2022. The police have cited 21 witnesses in the main challan and four witnesses in the supplementary challan. The prosecution has only examined three witnesses so far. The matter was listed on 23.06.2025 and 24.06.2025; however, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. Witnesses at Sr. Nos 1, 4, 6 and 7 were summoned for 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 respectively, but no witness appeared. Now the matter is posted on 03rd, 04th, 06th, 07th and 21st November. The delay in the trial is adversely affecting the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. 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 police received information that one person was lying dead in a room. The police visited the spot. The informant made a statement to the police that she was married to Rahul Kumar Yadav (since deceased). Rahul was residing with his family. Sanjay Kumar (the present petitioner) was residing in the adjacent room. The petitioner, Sanjay, called Rahul to his room. They consumed liquor. The informant, called Rahul who told her that he would come after some time. When he did not return till 10.00 PM, the informant went to the petitioner’s room. She asked about her 3 2025:HHC:28471 husband, and the petitioner replied that he (deceased) had left the room; however, she found that her husband was lying under the cot in the room, and he was covered with a bed sheet. She checked her husband and found him dead. The police registered the FIR and conducted investigation. The cause of death was asphyxia secondary to compression of the neck, consistent with antemortem throttling as per the autopsy report. As per the report of analysis, 270.55% proof alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. The police filed the charge sheet on 11.1.2024. FIR No. 17/15 dated 17.3.2015, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 506 of IPC was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Hayatnagar, District Sambhal. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom 03 witnesses have been examined and 18 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed for recording the statements of three witnesses on 06.10.2025. 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 police arrested the petitioner on 16.01.2022. The 4 2025:HHC:28471 prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom only three have been examined. 18 witnesses are yet to be examined. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, which violates the petitioner’s right to 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 for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, which is punishable with capital punishment. The petitioner should not be released on bail, keeping in view the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment. 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, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2990 of 2024, and was dismissed on 29.05.2025. 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, the subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed: 5 2025:HHC:28471 “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 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. It was submitted that there is a violation of the petitioners’ right to a speedy trial. This submission is not 6 2025:HHC:28471 acceptable. This Court had noticed while disposing of the earlier bail petition on 29.05.2025, that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had sought adjournments for consideration of the charge on 10.02.2023, 14.08.2023 and 09.10.2023. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that there is a delay in the progress of the trial when the delay is attributable to the petitioner himself. 11. It was submitted that the matter was listed before the learned trial Court on 23.06.2025 and 24.06.2025, on which date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. The matter was listed for recording the prosecution evidence on 07.07.2025, but no witness appeared. This fact by itself is not sufficient to infer the delay. The learned trial Court has listed the matter on 06.10.2025, 03.11.2025, 04.11.2025, 06.11.2025, 07.11.2025 and 21.11.2025 and ordered the summoning of all the prosecution witnesses. The fact that the learned trial Court has listed the matter on six days and has summoned all the prosecution witnesses shows the anxiety of the learned trial Court to conclude the trial. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek bail on the ground that no witness was examined since the dismissal of the earlier bail petition. Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court in case there is no reasonable progress in the trial, after 21.11.2025, but not at this stage. 7 2025:HHC:28471 12. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, which is punishable with capital punishment. His bail regarding the delay is not established on record, and he cannot be held entitled to bail at this stage. 13. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 14. 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 22 August, 2025 (Pramod)