Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16963 (HP)

Mohit Sharma v. State of HP

2026-03-16

Rakesh Kainthla

body2026
JUDGMENT : RAKESH KAINTHLA, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 5 of 2025, dated 04.01.2025, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 2. It has been asserted that the police were on patrolling duty on 04.1.2025 at around 5:50 p.m., when they received a secret information that Mohit Sharma (petitioner) and Mohit were standing near a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-1679 at Bhud Market to sell heroin. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Baddi, District Solan, and H.P. The police went to the spot and found two persons sitting on the motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-12Q-1679. The driver disclosed his name, Mohit Sharma (present petitioner), and the pillion rider disclosed his name, Mohit Kumar. The police searched the motorcycle and recovered a transparent pouch kept near the speedometer. The police checked the pouch and recovered 6.730 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused and seized the heroin. The police filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. Out of 15 witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner’s possession is intermediate, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Four registered against the petitioner out of which three FIRs are pending against him, and he was released on bail in one FIR. The petitioner 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. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were patrolling on 04.01.2025 when they received secret information that Mohit Sharma (the present petitioner) and Mohit Kumar were selling heroin. The police documented the information and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. They joined independent witnesses and went to the location where the petitioner and the co-accused were found sitting on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-1679. The driver of the motorcycle identified himself as Mohit Sharma (the present petitioner), and the pillion rider identified himself as Mohit Kumar. The police documented the information and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. They joined independent witnesses and went to the location where the petitioner and the co-accused were found sitting on a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12Q-1679. The driver of the motorcycle identified himself as Mohit Sharma (the present petitioner), and the pillion rider identified himself as Mohit Kumar. The police searched the motorcycle and found a transparent polythene packet containing 6.730 grams of heroin kept near the speedometer. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The heroin was sent to the FSL and was confirmed to be diacetylmorphine (Heroin). Four FIRs have been filed against the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court on 28.02.2025. Statements of six witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for the recording of statements of nine witnesses w.e.f. 25.05.2026 till 30.05.2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution, 6.730 grams of heroin were recovered. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year, and keeping in view the principle of proportionality, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any 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, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2072 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 24.09.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2072 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 24.09.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra v. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered on the basis of the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. The status report mentions that the petitioner was found in possession of 6.730 grams of heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. 15. The status report also mentions that the statements of six witnesses have been recorded and the matter is now listed w.e.f. 25.05.2026 till 30.05.2026 for recording the statements of 09 witnesses. The petitioner was arrested on 04.01.2025, and applying the principle of proportionality, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment, which can be awarded to him in case of his conviction. It was held by this Court in Sachin Sharma vs. State of H.P. 2026: HHC:6382 that where a person has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment and the trial is not likely to conclude soon, the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the violation of his speedy trial. 16. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is not entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission will not help the State. 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. 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, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he 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 his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his 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, Sub Jail Kishanpua, at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.