2026:HHC:30970 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1103 of 2026 Decided on: 28.7.2026 Prenba Lamba ….Petitioner Versus State of HP ….Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Parikshit Rathour, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No.4 of 2025, dated 04.01.2025, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109 and 333 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023 2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the informant was the owner of a jewellery shop. He was present in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:30970 his shop on 03.01.2025 at about 08.30 p.m., when the petitioner came to his shop with a sharp-edged weapon ‘khukhri’ and asked the informant to hand over gold, silver and other valuable articles. The informant refused, and the petitioner hit the informant with a darat. The informant shouted for help, and the neighbouring shopkeepers reached the spot. The informant was taken to the hospital. The police arrested the petitioner and investigated the matter. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner had earlier filed a regular bail petition which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2657 of 2025 and was dismissed on 09.03.2026. The statements of the victim and independent witnesses have been recorded, which is a material change in the circumstances. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner had also sustained grievous injuries, but his medical examination was not conducted. The petitioner has remained behind bars for 1 year and 6 months. The prosecution has only examined 4 witnesses out of 27 cited by it. The petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court 3 2026:HHC:30970 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 victim was running a jewellery shop at Chakka Road, Baddi. He was present in his shop on 03.01.2025 at about 8:30 PM. The petitioner went to his shop armed with a Khukhri and asked the victim to hand over gold, silver and other valuable articles. The victim refused, and the petitioner attacked him with a Khukhri. The victim tried to save himself and sustained injuries on his left hand. The petitioner again attacked the victim, and the victim sustained an injury on his right hand. The victim shouted for help; the neighbours came to the spot and rescued him from the petitioner. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. The material objects were seized and sent to SFSL. The petitioner and the victim were medically examined. The victim’s DNA was found in the pants and hood of the petitioner, and the Khukhri recovered from the petitioner. The Medical Officer stated that the nature of the injury was grievous and dangerous to life and could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, and the matter is listed for recording the 4 2026:HHC:30970 statements of prosecution witnesses on 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th November, 2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Parikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Parikshit Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The statements of material witnesses have various discrepancies. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence within a reasonable time, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. 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. He had earlier filed a bail petition which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2026:HHC:30970 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. 2657 of 2025 and was dismissed on 09.03.2026. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that a subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. It was held in the 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 6 2026:HHC:30970 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 applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. 7 2026:HHC:30970 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 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, 8 2026:HHC:30970 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.” 13. In the present case, the petitioner has not pleaded any change in the circumstances. Therefore, the present petition does not lie. 14. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission cannot be accepted. The certified copies of the order sheets show that the charges were framed on 9.12.2025. Thereafter, the statement of one witness each was recorded on 03.01.2026 and 25.05.2026. The statements of two witnesses were recorded on 26.05.2026. The matter is now listed for recording the statements of witnesses, with effect from 03.11.2026 till 06.11.2026. The recording of the statements of four witnesses within seven months of the framing of the charge does 9 2026:HHC:30970 not show any delay in the progress of the trial. The listing of the matter on four consecutive dates by the learned Trial Court shows its concern to expeditiously dispose of the trial. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail on the ground of delay in the progress of trial. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. This submission will not help the petitioner. The Court had earlier found while deciding the petitioner's bail petition that he was prima facie involved in the commission of the offence. This finding cannot be reviewed by the Court while deciding the present bail petition. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673: 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 10 2026:HHC:30970 in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments. 16. Therefore, it is impermissible to hold that the petitioner has not committed the crime while deciding the present bail petition. 17. In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to make out any change in the circumstances, and he cannot be held entitled to bail. Hence, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 18. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Court if the prosecution fails to complete the trial within a reasonable time. 19. The observation made hereinbefore 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 28th July, 2026 (Chander)