2026:HHC:22568 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 968 of 2026 Decided on: 17.06.2026 Beli Ram @ Belu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr Suneet Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General with HC. Vineet Kumar No.14 I.O. P.S. Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail in FIR No. 88 of 2023, dated 4.7.2023, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:22568 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police found the petitioner at Khalet Ropa going towards Damala Bridge with a carry bag on 04.07.2023 at about 3:00 p.m. The police searched the carry bag and recovered 1.729 kilograms of charas from it. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the charas. These allegations are false. The petitioner has been in custody since 04.07 2023. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner. Hence, 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 the police were on patrolling duty on 4.7.2023. They found the petitioner at Khalet Ropa going towards the Damala Bridge with a carry bag at 3:00 PM. The police inquired about the petitioner’s name, and he asked about the identity of the police officials. The police officials showed their identity cards. The petitioner threw the carry bag and started running away. The police apprehended him and checked the carry bag in the presence of two independent witnesses. It was found to contain 1.729 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. Charas was sent to SFSL, and as per 3 2026:HHC:22568 the report of analysis, it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. 9 witnesses out of 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. The matter is listed on 23/24.06.2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Suneet Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Suneet Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than two years, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas. 4 2026:HHC:22568 Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case, and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition (being Cr.MP(M) No. 419 of 2025), which was dismissed on 22.03.2025 by the Court and the subsequent bail petition only lies when there is any change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not pleaded any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given a 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, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 419 of 2025, and was dismissed by this Court on 22.03.2025. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that a subsequent bail petition only lies for a change in the circumstances. 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, 5 2026:HHC:22568 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. 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 6 2026:HHC:22568 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: 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. 7 2026:HHC:22568 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 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 that 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 8 2026:HHC:22568 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 petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 15. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. This cannot be accepted. A perusal of the status report shows that seven witnesses were examined at the time of passing of the earlier order, and now nine witnesses have been examined. The matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 23.06.2026 and 24.06.2026. The listing of the matter on two consecutive dates shows the anxiety of the learned Trial Court to expeditiously conclude the trial. 16. It was submitted that the witnesses had not appeared on some of the dates of hearing, which shows that the prosecution is not interested in completing the trial expeditiously. This submission cannot be accepted. Merely because the witnesses had not appeared on some dates cannot 9 2026:HHC:22568 lead to an inference that the prosecution is not interested in completing the trial expeditiously. 16. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail at this stage. Hence, the present petition fails and is dismissed; however, this order will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Court in case his trial is not concluded expeditiously. 18. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th June, 2025 (ravinder)