2025:HHC:33306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2104 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Date of Decision: 24.9.2025. Taranjeet Singh ...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 Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 210 of 2023, dated 01.08.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS’) and Sections 181, 192 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33306 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. He is the only earning member in the family. Her mother is aged and is suffering from various ailments. She is unable to take care of herself in the petitioner’s absence. The investigation is complete. The petitioner had filed a bail petition earlier, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 433 of 2025 and was dismissed by this Court on 22.03.2025. The prosecution has examined only five witnesses, and twenty witnesses are yet to be examined. 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 were checking the vehicles at Bathu on 1.8.2023 at 12.30 AM. They stopped a truck bearing registration No. HP11-5239 for checking. The driver could not produce any documents. The police enquired the driver about the articles kept in the truck, and he got frightened. The police searched the truck in the presence of independent witnesses and found 10 bags containing 129.600 kilograms of Poppy straw. The police seized the bags and arrested the driver and the co-accused. The Poppy straw was sent to SFSL, Junga, and as per the result, it 3 2025:HHC:33306 was confirmed to be a sample of Poppy straw. The petitioner is the owner of the Truck. He revealed during interrogation that he had purchased 10/10 bags from an unknown person and loaded them in his two trucks. One truck was apprehended at Bathu, and another truck was apprehended at Punjab. The petitioner has two trucks bearing registration No. HP-11-5239 and PB-10- 1129. 129.600 kilograms of poppy husk were recovered from the truck bearing registration No. HP-11-5239 and a huge quantity were recovered from the truck bearing PB-10-1129. The petitioner is a dealer in poppy husk. FIR No. 279 of 2018, dated 16.11.2028, has been registered against the petitioner in Police Station Nalagarh for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. FIR No. 29 of 2023, dated 1.8.2023, has also been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under section 15 of the NDPS Act. The police have filed the charge sheet before the learned Court. Twenty-one witnesses have been examined out of the twenty-five witnesses cited by the prosecution. The matter is now listed on 13.10.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report. 4 2025:HHC:33306 4. I have heard Mr Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation has been completed, and the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court. Statements of twenty-one witnesses have been examined, and only statements of four police officials are to be recorded. The petitioner cannot intimidate the police officials. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody for an indefinite period. Therefore, 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 had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. Subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change 5 2025:HHC:33306 in the circumstances. 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. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.433 of 2025, and was dismissed on 22.03.2025 by this Court. 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 6 2025:HHC:33306 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:33306 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 8 2025:HHC:33306 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 a 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.” 13. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission cannot be accepted. The earlier order passed by this Court mentioned that five witnesses were examined till 22.03.2025. The status report shows that twenty- one witnesses have been examined, and only four witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 13.10.2025. The majority 9 2025:HHC:33306 of the witnesses have been examined, and only four witnesses remain to be examined; therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that there is a delay in the progress of the trial cannot be accepted. 15. This Court held in the earlier bail petition that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case, and the petitioner was unable to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This circumstance has not changed, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail. 16. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 17. 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 24th September, 2025 (ravinder)