2025:HHC:29897 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1988 of 2025 Reserved on: 26.08.2025 Date of Decision: 03.09.2025. Ram Chander ...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. Rajesh Mandohtra, Advocate For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 249 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:29897 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 20.12.2024 in the aforesaid F.I.R. As per the prosecution, a team of Special Investigation Unit (SIU), Solan, searched the premises of the petitioner and Happy Singh on 19.12.2024 and recovered 6.19 grams of heroin kept beneath the mattress lying on the floor. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the matter was listed for consideration of the charge on 22.08.2025. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 707 of 2025, and was dismissed on 22.04.2025. The present petition is being filed due to a change in the circumstances. There is no substantial progress in the trial. The charges have not been framed so far. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He 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 police party was on patrolling duty on 19.12.2024. They received a secret information at 7:40 p.m. that petitioner Ram Chander and Happy were residing in the building owned by Pardeep Kumar Chandel. They were selling heroin, and 3 2025:HHC:29897 in the case of their search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information to writing. The police associated an independent witness, Pardeep Kumar Chand, and went to the room where the petitioner and Happy Singh were present. The police searched the room and recovered 6.19 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and Happy Singh. The heroin was sent to SFSL Junga, and the same was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ludhiana, but his Aadhar Card shows him to be a resident of Delhi. F.I.R. No. 69 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner in the police station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana and F.I.R. No.166 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Mohindra Park, North West Delhi. The challan has been filed before the Court. The matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 04.11.2025 for consideration of charge. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no progress in the trial. The 4 2025:HHC:29897 learned Trial Court has not framed the charges, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Kumar vs State of H.P. 2025: HHC:21847 in support of his submission. 6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. There is no 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. 707 of 2025, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.04.2025. 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 5 2025:HHC:29897 circumstances, which means a substantial change having a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely a cosmetic change having no effect. 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 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 6 2025:HHC:29897 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. 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 7 2025:HHC:29897 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 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.” 8 2025:HHC:29897 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 violation of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial, and the petitioner is entitled to bail. This submission cannot be accepted. Photocopies of the ordersheets filed on record show that the matter was listed for consideration of charge on 05.05.2025 and 2.07.2025. Learned defence counsel sought time for consideration of the charge on both these occasions. The copy of the order sheet dated 22.08.2025 has not been filed to show that the adjournment was not sought by the learned defence counsel. When the learned defence counsel is seeking adjournment for the consideration of the charge and is not cooperating with the progress of the trial, it is difficult to see how the petitioner can complain of the violation of his right to a speedy trial. A person cannot take advantage of his own wrong; therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the adjournments for consideration of the charge and claim before this Court, a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of his violation of the right to a speedy trial. 9 2025:HHC:29897 15. The judgment of this Court in Pardeep Kumar (supra) shows that the adjournments were not sought by the accused but by the co-accused, and the Court had also adjourned the matter by four months without assigning any reasons. In the present case, the adjournment is being sought by the petitioner, and the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. 16. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail; hence, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed. 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) 03rd September 2025 Judge (ravinder)