2026:HHC:20068 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) Nos. 507 & 512 of 2026 Reserved on: 18.05.2026 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 507 of 2026 Mangat Mohammad …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent ______________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 512 of 2026 Hardik Chawda …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s) : Ms Kiran Dhiman, Advocate for Petitioner Mangat Mohammad M/s Rakesh Chaudhary and Panku Chaudhary, Advocate for petitioner Hardik Chawda. For the Respondent/State: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:20068 Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 44 of 2023, dated 10.02.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). Since both the bail petitions have arisen out of the same FIR, they are being taken up together for disposal. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested by the police for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. The petitioners are permanent residents of Punjab and Maharashtra, and there are no chances of their absconding. The petitioners do not have criminal antecedents. The police have filed the chargesheet before the Court. The prosecution has cited 35 witnesses, and the conclusion of the trial will take some time. The petitioners would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. 3 2026:HHC:20068 3. The petitions are opposed by filing a reply. It is asserted that the police had stopped vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01B-9156 on 10.02.2023 at about 12:55 p.m. The petitioner, Mangat Muhammed, was driving the vehicle and the petitioner, Hardik Chawda, was sitting as a passenger. Hardik Chawda tried to give a bag to the driver, Mangat Muhammed, after picking it up from the rear seat, and the driver tried to push the bag towards Hardik Chawda. The police became suspicious and searched the vehicle in the presence of independent witnesses. A bag containing 4.234 kg of Charas was found in the vehicle. The police seized the vehicle and Charas and arrested the petitioners. Hardik Chawda disclosed that he had visited Kasol on 02.02.2023 and called Mangat Muhammad on 08.02.2023. They had purchased the Charas from an unknown person for ₹2,00,000/-. However, they could not identify him because he was wearing a mask. The Charas was sent to SFSL Junga, and it contained 37.46% w/w Resin as per the report of SFSL Junga. The call detail records of the petitioner and driver were obtained, and it was found that they were in contact with each other from 08.02.2023 till 10.02.2023. The mobile phone was registered in the name of Hardik Chawda’s mother. It was found from the call 4 2026:HHC:20068 detail record of the petitioner, Mangat Muhammad, that he had visited Kullu from Chandigarh three times between 05.02.2023 and 09.02.2023. His location was found to be at Ajijpur Toll Plaza, Punjab, where he had paid the toll tax for the vehicle bearing registration no. PB-01B-9156 at 3:34 p.m. The petitioners were found in the vehicle from which the recovery of Charas was effected. The owner issued a certificate stating that Mangat Muhammad was the driver. The petitioner, Hardik Chawda, was in touch with the owner and had called him 212 times during the last year. The petitioners, Mangat Muhammad and Hardik Chawda, were in touch with each other w.e.f. 08.02.2023 till 10.02.2023 for about seven times. Gurtej Singh made a wrong statement to the police that the driver of the vehicle was some other person, and the petitioner, Hardik Chawda, was a passenger. The prosecution has cited 35 witnesses, out of whom two witnesses of the main challan and four witnesses of the supplementary challan are to be examined. The matter is listed on 03.06.2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner Mangat Mohammad and M/s Rakesh Chaudhary 5 2026:HHC:20068 and Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner Hardik Chawda and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Hardik Chawda, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of more than three years, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mangat Mohammad, adopted the submissions made by Mr Rakesh Chaudhary and prayed that the petitioner, Mangat Mohammad, be also released on bail. 7. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of an offence involving a 6 2026:HHC:20068 commercial quantity of charas. 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 petitioners have not shown any change in the circumstances, and they are not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. It is undisputed that the petitioners had earlier filed bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2272 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) 2213 of 2024 and were dismissed by the Court on 06.12.2024. It was laid down in the State of Maharashtra. 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 7 2026:HHC:20068 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. 10. 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.” 11. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed: 8 2026:HHC:20068 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 9 2026:HHC:20068 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 applications need 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.” 14. Therefore, the present bail petitions can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 10 2026:HHC:20068 15. The Court had earlier held that there was sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioners with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. They were found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to their case. These considerations have not changed. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1520: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1070, that it is impermissible to review the earlier order of bail in the subsequent bail petition, and the Court can only consider the change in circumstances. It was observed at page 676: 8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. Successive bail applications are indeed permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking a review of the earlier judgment, which is not permissible under criminal law, as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments. 11 2026:HHC:20068 16. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be released on bail on the ground that they are innocent and were falsely implicated. 17. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission cannot be accepted. The status report mentions that two witnesses of the main charge sheet and four witnesses of the supplementary charge sheet are to be examined, and the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 03.06.2026. This shows that the trial is progressing normally, and the plea taken by the petitioners that there is a delay in the progress of the trial is not correct. 18. A reference was made to the order sheets to show that the prosecution had failed to produce the witnesses on some dates of hearing, and there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission cannot be accepted. The Court has to see the overall progress of the trial and is not concerned with the fact that on some of the dates, the witnesses had not appeared. The matter is listed on 03.06.2026 and is expected to conclude by that day. Therefore, the plea that the petitioners should be released 12 2026:HHC:20068 on bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial will not help the petitioners. 19. No other point was urged. 20. In view of the above, the present petitions fail, and are dismissed. 21. The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petitions and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th May, 2026 (Nikita)