2026:HHC:25429 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 869 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.6.2026. Champa Devi …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & anr. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Sunny Rawat, Advocate. For the Respondents/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for regular bail in FIR No. 60 of 2025, dated 13.05.2025, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P., for offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 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:25429 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police party was on patrolling duty on 13.05.2025. They received a secret informant that petitioner Champa Devi and her daughter-in-law, Sakshi, were selling heroin from their house, and in case of a search of their house, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The information was credible. It was reduced into writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Indora. The police party associated two independent witnesses, Ashwani Kumar and Suresh Kumar, and went to the petitioner’s house, where she was present with her daughter-in- law. She brought Rajinder Kumar at the instance of the police. The police searched the house of the petitioner and recovered 17.91 grams of heroin kept in a plastic packet inside the Sofa. Co- accused Sakshi has been released on bail by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is suffering from various ailments. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 09 FIRs were registered against the petitioner, out of which 05 have been decided, and four are still pending. The petitioner has filed four regular bail petitions, which were dismissed. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 3 2026:HHC:25429 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the Police party was on patrolling duty on 13.05.2025. They received secret information at Hill Top temple, Damtal, at 3:15 p.m. that the petitioner and her daughter-in-law, Sakshi, were selling heroin, and in case of a search of their house, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to SDPO, Indora, through Constable Pankaj. Police associated Ashwani Kumar, Up Pardhan, Village Chhanni and Suresh Kumar as independent witnesses. The police went to the petitioner’s house, where the petitioner and her daughter-in-law were present. They were asked to bring a male member to search the police officials. Rajinder Kumar was called. The search of the police party was conducted, and the police searched the petitioner’s house. Police recovered a plastic packet concealed in the Sofa, which contained 17.91 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and the co- accused and seized the heroin. The petitioner has been convicted in six FIRs. No other FIR was registered against the co-accused. Sakshi revealed that Rahul had sold the heroin. He was also arrested. The investigation was conducted. Heroin was sent to SFSL Junga, and as per the report, it was found to be a sample of diacetylmorphine (heroin). The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 11.7.2025, 4 2026:HHC:25429 and a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 15.9.2025. The matter was listed for consideration on charge 6.6.2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Sunny Rawat, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Sunny Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated. She is an elderly lady and is suffering from various ailments. She would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General of the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was dismissed by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has failed to show any change in the circumstances. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2026:HHC:25429 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 Cr.MP(M) No. 1581 of 2025, which was dismissed by this court on 27.08.2025. The petitioner filed SLP (Crl.) No. 19120 of 2025 and was dismissed on 27.11.2025. It was held 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 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 6 2026:HHC:25429 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 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 7 2026:HHC:25429 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 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 8 2026:HHC:25429 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 recognized 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. This position was reiterated in Mohseen v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 919, wherein it was observed: - 24. While there is no absolute bar against a High Court granting bail to an accused whose bail was previously cancelled by this Court, the grant of bail must be supported by reasons demonstrating either a change in circumstances or the existence of fresh grounds not considered by this Court at the time of cancellation. 14. The Court had earlier held that the petitioner was prima facie involved in the commission of an offence. She had 9 2026:HHC:25429 criminal antecedents and was not entitled to bail. These considerations have not changed. 15. The status report mentions that the police had recovered 17.91 grams of heroin from the petitioner's possession. The police had arrested the petitioner on 13.05.2025. The charge sheet was filed on 11.07.2025, and the supplementary charge sheet was filed on 15.09.2025. However, the matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 06.06.2026. This shows that the learned Trial Court was unable to frame the charges for about one year from the date of filing of the charge sheet, which supports the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner was found in possession of 17.91 grams of heroin, and if the principle of proportionality is applied, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to her in case of her conviction. This Court held in Shubham Chaudhary vs State of H.P 2026: HHC:6937 that where the accused has already undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment which can be awarded to him in case of his conviction, his further detention is not justified. The petitioner has also undergone a substantial part of her imprisonment that 10 2026:HHC:25429 can be awarded to her in case of conviction, and her further detention in custody is not justified. 16. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is not entitled to bail on this consideration. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024: INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused in case of long incarceration. It was observed: “10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.” 17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - 11 2026:HHC:25429 (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will she influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish her mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 18. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai District & Open Air Correctional Home, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 12 2026:HHC:25429 20. The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th June, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.06.30 16:26:27 +0530