2025:HHC:33390 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1911 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Date of Decision: 25.9 2025. Abdul Khalik ...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 K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 46/2024, dated 10.04.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Puruwala District Sirmaur. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, Gurvinder @ Vinder, Inderjeet Singh @ Inder, Mukesh and the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33390 petitioner, Abdul Khalik, and two persons visited the informant’s house on 10.04.2024 at about 10:30 a.m. Gurvinder and Inderjeet shot at the informant, but he escaped. Gurvinder also shot at Shweta Thakur, the informant’s sister. The assailants ran away from the spot. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The marks of the bullet were found on the pillar. The police arrested the petitioner on 11.04.2024. The petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence, and he was falsely implicated. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, has released two persons on bail. The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging his arrest, which is pending adjudication. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in judicial custody. The petitioner had earlier filed two bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1714 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 24 of 2025. Both the petitions were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024 and 10.4.2025, respectively. 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 Gurvinder @ Vinder, Inderjeet Singh @ Inder, 3 2025:HHC:33390 Mukesh and the petitioner, Abdul Khalik, along with two persons, visited the house of the informant on 10.04.2024 at about 10:30 am. Gurvinder and Inderjeet shot at the informant, but he escaped. The other persons were armed with iron rods and pistols. Gurvinder@ Vinder also shot at Shweta Thakur, the informant’s sister. The assailants ran away from the spot. Gurvinder used to visit Kiran, who was a tenant of the informant. He argued with Kiran on 09.04.2024. The informant asked Kiran to vacate the room, after which Gurvinder shot at the informant. The other accused had accompanied him. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police found the marks of the bullet on the pillar. The police arrested Mukesh Kumar and Abdul Khalik. Abdul Khalik made a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he had concealed the pistol, which could be got recovered by him. He got a pistol recovered in the presence of witnesses Aarif Khan, Tajinder Singh and HC Bhupinder Singh. The police seized the pistol. The other weapons were also recovered at the instance of other accused. These were sent to FSL, and as per the report, the pistol falls within the purview of the Arms Act. Firearm discharge residues were detected in the barrel of the pistol. The petitioner is a member of a gang led by 4 2025:HHC:33390 Gurvinder @ Vinder. He had joined other assailants to attack the informant. An FIR No. 94/2023, dated 26.06.2023, has been registered in Police Station Puruwala for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner can commit a similar offence and intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The challan has been filed before the Court, and the prosecution witnesses were summoned for 28.08.2024 and 29.08.2024. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the recovery. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed two bail petitions, which were dismissed by this Court. The subsequent petition only 5 2025:HHC:33390 lies if there is a change in the 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. 1714 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 24 of 2025, which were dismissed on 18.09.2024 and 10.4.2025, respectively. 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 6 2025:HHC:33390 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:33390 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 a subsequent 8 2025:HHC:33390 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 not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission is not acceptable. The record shows that adjournment was sought on 06.08.2024 for the checking of copies. The adjournments were again sought for consideration on 19.11.2024 and 19.12.2024. The charges were framed on 18.01.2025. The prosecution examined one witness on 12.03.2025, two witnesses each on 28.07.2025 and 29.08.2025, and one witness on 9 2025:HHC:33390 29.08.2025. Thus, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses so far. The examination of eight witnesses within seven months of the framing of charges does not show any delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail because of the delay in the progress of the Trial. 15. Consequently, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 16. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits. (Rakesh Kainthla) 25th September 2025 Judge (ravinder)