2025:HHC:33353 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2167 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Date of decision: 25.09.2025 Jagdev Singh alias J.D. ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, Advocates. For the respondent/ State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Mast Ram I.O. P.S. Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 175 of 2024, dated 28.07.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 249 & 3(5) of BNS of 2023 at Police Station Nurpur District Kangra, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33353 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The charges were framed on 02.08.2025, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 25.10.2025. A supplementary charge-sheet was also filed on 30.08.2025. The petitioner had earlier filed two bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2164 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 204 of 2025, and were dismissed on 21.10.2024 and 22.03.2025, respectively. Co- accused Rahul Singh was enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Criminal) No. 6191 of 2025. The charges were framed on 02.08.2025. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 30.08.2025, but no witnesses appeared. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. 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 Pawan Kumar informed the police on 27.07.2024 at about 9:14 PM that Vinod and Kannu were injured by Aditya and his friends by using a darat. They were taken to different hospitals for treatment. The police went to the hospital and 3 2025:HHC:33353 recorded the statement of the victim, Aditya, who stated that he and his friend Vinod Kumar alias Viku had gone towards Ganoh on 27.07.2024. They reached Ganoh Bazar Chowk at 7:15 PM. They were taking juice when Aditya Dadwal, Jagdev Dadwal and Rahul Kumar came to him and said that they were roaming around in the bazaar after pretending to be Don. Vinod enquired as to why the accused party was using such language. The accused started arguing with the informant party and also pushed them. Aditya Dadwal brought Darat and inflicted a blow on the head of Vinod. He also inflicted blows on the right arm of the victim/informant, Aditya. Jagdev Dadwal inflicted blows using stones, and Rahul Kumar gave beatings with kicks and fist blows. The accused ran away in their vehicle bearing registration No. HP38D-7272. The police conducted the investigation and arrested the accused near the Hollywood Hotel. The accused, Aditya, made a disclosure statement and got recovered a darat with which the injuries were inflicted. The police seized the darat. The articles were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and blood was found on the soil, glove, cotton swabs, T-Shirt and Pants of Adiaya, T-Shirt, Vest, Underwear and Pants of Vinod Kumar and Darat. As per the report of analysis, DNA from the blood on the 4 2025:HHC:33353 rexine piece matched with the DNA of Aditya. DNA from the soil, glove and darat matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar. DNA from the T-shirt of Aditya matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. DNA from the Pants of Aditya matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. DNA from the pants of Vinod Kumar matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. As per the medical report, the injuries sustained by the victim were dangerous and could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. FIR No. 357 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner Jagdev Singh, and he was acquitted on 11.6.2014. FIR No. 133 of 2022, dated 28.4.2022, was also registered against the petitioner Jagdev, and he was acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, on 8.3.2025. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The charge-sheet and Supplementary charge-sheet have been filed on 28.04.2022 and 24.10.2024, respectively, before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, H.P. The matter is now listed for recording the prosecution evidence on 25.10.2025. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard M/s Rakesh Kumar Chaudhry and Mr Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr 5 2025:HHC:33353 Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the co-accused has been released on bail and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The role ascribed to the petitioner is different from the role ascribed to Rahul, and there is no parity. 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 two bail petitions bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 2164 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 204 of 2025, which were dismissed on 21.10.2024 and 22.03.2025, respectively. It was held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that 6 2025:HHC:33353 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 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 7 2025:HHC:33353 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. 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. 8 2025:HHC:33353 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 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 9 2025:HHC:33353 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. The status report shows that Aditya brought a Darat from the vehicle and inflicted injury to Vinod Kumar @ Vikku. Jagdev Dadwal (present petitioner) inflicted injuries with stones, and Rahul Singh inflicted injuries with kicks and fist blows. 15. The status report shows that only Aditya had used the Darat to cause injuries to Rahul, and the petitioner had not caused injury by means of any sharp-edged weapon. Therefore, the roles ascribed to the petitioner and Rahul Singh are similar. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has released accused Rahul Singh on bail, and the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the learned Trial Court to impose terms and conditions of bail, and since the petitioner is being released on bail on the principle of 10 2025:HHC:33353 parity, the terms and conditions in his case are also to be prescribed by the learned Trial Court. 17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and Superintendent Model Central Jail Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. through FASTER for necessary compliance. 18. 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 25th September, 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: RAVINDER KUMAR Date: 2025-09-25 13:24:09