2026:HHC:34454 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1376 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.8.2026 Decided on: 17.8.2026 Kamal Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr A.S. Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : M/s Prashant Sen and Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocates General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has &led the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 12 of 2025, dated 26.1.2025, registered for the commission of o0ences punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, HC Pawan Kumar received secret information on 25.1.2025 near 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34454 Radhaswami Satsang Ghar at Amrali that the petitioner and Rahul Dhiman were transporting heroin in the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10-DZ-4606. The police joined Sanjeev Kumar and Yash Pal Singh and intercepted the vehicle. The driver revealed his name as Kamal Kumar (petitioner) and the person sitting on the front seat revealed his name as Rahul Dhiman. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of the witnesses and recovered a half-burnt currency note of ₹10/-, one electronic weighing scale, and one poly packet containing 31.60 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused and seized the heroin. The petitioner is su0ering from cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis. He requires medical assistance and surgery. He remained under treatment at Dr RPGMCH, Tanda. The petitioner is not required for further interrogation. The prosecution has examined some of the witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, which violates the petitioner's right to speedy trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by &ling a status report asserting that the police received secret information on 25.01.2025 that Kamal Kumar and Rahul Dhiman were 3 2026:HHC:34454 transporting heroin in the vehicle bearing registration No. PB- 10DZ-4606, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching it. The information was credible. It was reduced to writing and was sent to the Supervisory OEcer. Sanjeev Kumar and Yashpal Singh were associated, and the vehicle was intercepted in their presence at 9:56 pm. The driver identi&ed himself as Kamal Kumar, and the person sitting beside the driver revealed his name as Rahul. The police checked the vehicle in the presence of the independent witnesses and recovered a lighter, a transparent pouch containing burnt currency of ₹10/-, an electronic weighing scale and a polythene packet kept beneath the driver’s seat. The packet was checked, and it was found to contain 31.60 grams of heroin. The heroin was seized, and the occupants of the vehicle were arrested. The heroin was sent to FSL, and as per the result, it was found to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin). The challan was prepared and &led before the Court on 24.03.2025. The matter is listed for consideration of the charge on 24.06.2025. FIR No. 227/2020 dated 28.10.2020 has been registered against the petitioner. He would indulge in the commission of a similar o0ence in case of his release on bail. The police &led a charge sheet before the Court on 24.3.2025. The 4 2026:HHC:34454 matter is pending before the learned Special Judge-II, Una, H.P. Statements of three witnesses out of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been recorded. FIR No. 227 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and indulge in the commission of a similar crime in case of his release on bail. Hence the status report. 4. I have heard Mr A.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr A.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 26.01.2025. The prosecution has only examined 03 witnesses out of 20 cited by it. The petitioner is su0ering from various ailments, and he requires constant care, which is not possible inside the Jail. 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 Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found 5 2026:HHC:34454 in possession of 31.60 grams of heroin, which is a huge quantity and could not have been meant for self-consumption. The petitioner had earlier &led 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 mentioned any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. The consumption of heroin is adversely a0ecting society and no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 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 &led a bail petition before this Court which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1049 of 2025 and was dismissed on 27.6.2025. 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. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, 6 2026:HHC:34454 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. 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 7 2026:HHC:34454 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 speci&c 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 &ling 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 di0erent 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 8 2026:HHC:34454 application can be &led 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 &le successive bail applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for &ling 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 &nding 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 o0ence the right to &le a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely di0erent 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 di0erent Judges, there would be conNicting 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 con&dence 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 &le a subsequent bail application.” 9 2026:HHC:34454 13. This Court had earlier found that the petitioner was prima facie found in possession of 31.06 grams of heroin. The petitioner had criminal antecedents, and he is not entitled to concession of bail. These considerations have not changed. 14. It was submitted that the prosecution has cited 20 witnesses out of whom the statements of 03 witnesses have been recorded and the petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated. This submission has force. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 31.06 grams of heroin. The Central Government has noti&ed 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, which means that a person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be punished with imprisonment of 10 years. Applying the principle of proportionality to the present case, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of imprisonment, and his further detention is not justi&ed. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is likely to commit the same crime in case of his release on bail; 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 10 2026:HHC:34454 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.” 16. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Roopnagar. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report, which means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there are no chances of his absconding. 17. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses and indulge in the commission of similar o0ences, in case of his release on bail. This apprehension is not suEcient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be recovered by imposing conditions. 11 2026:HHC:34454 18. 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 ₹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 inNuence 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 &ve days from the date of the change. 19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to &le a petition for cancellation of the bail. 12 2026:HHC:34454 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Una, District Una, H.P. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th August, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.08.17 14:29:04 +0530