2025:HHC:27876 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1828 of 2025 Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Date of Decision: 19.08.2025. Salam Deen @ Kaka ...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. Sahil Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General with HC Rajeev No.15, I.O. Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 115 of 2024, dated 13.09.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 305, 331(4), 238, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27876 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody. The petitioner had filed a bail petition earlier, which was dismissed by the Court; however, there is a change in circumstances. The informant has refused to identify the ornaments recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 19.05.2025, and the witness could not be examined due to the incomplete charge-sheet. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Five FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that his wife went to her old house on 11.09.2024 at 6:00 a.m. and found that the locks of the doors were broken. The iron almirah was damaged, and the ornaments kept inside the almirah were missing. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The police checked the CCTV footage and found that two motorcycles with four riders were seen near the place of the incident. One motorcycle’s registration number was identified as PB-07CG-0881. The 3 2025:HHC:27876 name of the owner was found to be Salam Deen (present petitioner). The police found the motorcycle parked at Loharli. The police seized the motorcycle. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. He got recovered the ornaments. The weight of the gold ornaments was 18.38 grams, and the weight of the silver ornaments was found to be 105.42 grams. The informant was called to the police station to identify the ornaments, but he was unable to identify them. The informant’s wife visited the Police Station and stated that the recovered ornaments did not belong to her. Various FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. 4. I have heard Mr. Sahil Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Sahil Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The police showed the recovered ornaments to the informant and his wife, but they were unable to identify them. Therefore, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Hence, he prayed that 4 2025:HHC:27876 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 motorcycle of the petitioner was seen near the place of the incident. He was identified with the help of CCTV footage. There is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Multiple FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. 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 earlier, the petitioner filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1009 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court 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, 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 5 2025:HHC:27876 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.” 6 2025:HHC:27876 10. It has been submitted that there is a change in the circumstances as the informant and his wife refused to identify the ornaments. A perusal of the status report shows that the informant was called to the Police Station, and he was unable to identify the recovered ornaments. The police also called the informant’s wife to the Police Station, but she also refused to identify the ornaments. Therefore, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. 11. It was submitted that the motorcycle of the petitioner was found near the place of the incident, which prima facie establishes his involvement. This cannot be accepted. Merely because the petitioner’s motorcycle was found near the place of the incident cannot lead to an inference that the petitioner had committed the theft, when there is no other material to connect him with the commission of the crime. The ornaments stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner were not connected to the present case. Thus, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody because his motorcycle was found near the place of the incident. 7 2025:HHC:27876 12. In view of the above, there is insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime, and his pretrial detention is not justified. 13. It was submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences and he should not be released on bail because of his criminal antecedents. This submission is only stated to be rejected. The petitioner can be detained in custody if there is sufficient material to connect him with the commission of crime. He cannot be detained in custody because the F.I.Rs. were registered against him earlier. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the present case, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and 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 on each and every hearing 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 8 2025:HHC:27876 address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial 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. 15. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 16. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Kathua Jail, Jammu Kashmir. 17. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge 19th August 2025 (ravinder)