2026:HHC:34452 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1311 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.8.2026 Decided on: 17.8.2026 Samar Gill …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has &led the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 25 of 2025, dated 25.02.2025, registered for the commission of o/ences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34452 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present FIR. No incriminating substance was recovered from him. The police have &led 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 which the Court may impose. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family and has remained behind bars for about one year and &ve months. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, 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 25.02.2025 at 5.00 PM that two people residing in Room No. 106 of Hotel Tirupati Classic were selling heroin, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching the room. The information was reduced into writing and was sent to the Sub Divisional Police O=cer (SDPO). The police reached the room with Aakash Deep and Sachin Tiwari. The petitioner and the co- accused were found in Room No.106. The room was searched, 3 2026:HHC:34452 and one backpack was found on the chair. The police recovered 29.700 grams of heroin from the backpack. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The heroin was sent to the FSL, and as per the report of analysis, it was found to be a sample of diacetylmorphine. FIR No. 224 of 2024, dated 26.9.2024, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of o/ences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of ND&PS. The police &led the charge sheet before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. on 22.4.2025. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses w.e.f. 7.9.2026 till 14.9.2026. The petitioner brings the heroin from other States and sells it to the people at Kullu. The petitioner would inDuence the witnesses and would indulge in the commission of a similar crime if released on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate for the respondent/State. 5. Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely 4 2026:HHC:34452 implicated. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was found in possession of 29.700 grams of heroin, which is an intermediate quantity. The petitioner was arrested on 25.02.2025, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner's right to speedy trial. The police have &led the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that 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 failed to point out any change in the circumstances. The petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he would indulge in the commission of a crime if released on bail. Hence, 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. 5 2026:HHC:34452 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had &led a bail petition before this Court which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1577 of 2025 and was dismissed on 20.08.2025. 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, 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 6 2026:HHC:34452 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 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 7 2026:HHC:34452 applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view di/erent 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 &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 o/ence the right to &le a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely di/erent 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 di/erent Judges, there would be conDicting 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 8 2026:HHC:34452 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.” 13. The Court had earlier found that the petitioner was found in possession of 29.700 grams of heroin. He had criminal antecedents and was not entitled to bail because the possibility of his committing the crime could not be ruled out. These considerations have not changed. The status report shows that the charge sheet was &led before the Court on 22.04.2025 and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses w.e.f. 07.09.2026 till 14.09.2026. The Central Government has noti&ed 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, and considering the quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered from the petitioner, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him in case of his conviction. Therefore, his further detention is not justi&ed. 14. 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 9 2026:HHC:34452 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.” 15. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Amritsar, Punjab, which was not stated to be incorrect in the status report &led by the State, which means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 16. It was admitted that the petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar crime and intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. These apprehensions can be removed by imposing conditions and are not su=cient to deny bail to the petitioner. 10 2026:HHC:34452 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 ₹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 inDuence 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. 18. 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. 11 2026:HHC:34452 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 20. 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 14:27:17 +0530