2026:HHC:34717 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 1392 of 2026 Reserved on: 17.08.2026 Date of Decision: 18.08.2026 Suraj Kumar Sharma @ Paharia ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Devender Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking bail in FIR No. 234 of 2024, dated 21.11.2024, registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 21.11.2024 for possessing 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34717 203.1 grams of heroin. The investigation has been completed, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The petitioner's mother is suffering from cancer. She was receiving treatment at Lal Bahadur Shastri Government College and Hospital, Mandi. The petitioner has a minor son less than 2 years of age who is residing with his mother. The petitioner's wife is also suffering from various ailments and is unable to take care of her minor son and her mother-in-law. The petitioner's mother is to be taken up for regular treatment at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Bilaspur. 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 on patrolling duty on 21.11.2024. They received secret information near Bagla Gagal Link Road at 3.45 PM that the petitioner was selling heroin and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by searching him. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO). The police associated Pawan Kumar and Hema Devi and went to the petitioner’s 3 2026:HHC:34717 house, where he was present. The police searched the house in the presence of independent witnesses and recovered ₹900/- and 203.1 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The heroin was sent to the FSL, and as per the result, it was confirmed to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine. FIR Nos. 178/36, 134/13, 428/2020, 17/23 and 208/23 have been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. The statements of all the witnesses have been recorded, and the matter is listed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on 29.08.2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Devender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Devender Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence. The petitioner’s mother is suffering from cancer, and she is required to be taken to the hospital for her treatment. 4 2026:HHC:34717 There is no one to look after her. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has failed to show any change in the circumstances. Therefore, 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. 2910 of 2025 and was dismissed on 09.01.2026. The petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.1387 of 2026 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was withdrawn on 30.01.2026. It was held in the State of Maharashtra. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been 5 2026:HHC:34717 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. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected, there is a further onus on the court to 6 2026:HHC:34717 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. 7 2026:HHC:34717 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, as 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 circumstances 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 circumstances 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 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 8 2026:HHC:34717 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 circumstances as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.” 13. The Court had earlier held that the petitioner was prima facie involved in the commission of the crime, that he had criminal antecedents and he was not entitled to bail on this ground. These circumstances have not changed. 14. The Form-A annexed to the bail petition mentions in para-C that 21 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet and all the witnesses have been examined. This corroborates the statement in the status report that the statements of prosecution witnesses have been recorded and the matter is listed for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2026. The trial has concluded, and the petitioner’s grievance about the delay in the progress of the trial is not justified. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner should be enlarged on interim bail. The petitioner would be at liberty to make such prayer before the learned Trial Court, which is seized of the matter, because the learned Trial Court is the best Court to 9 2026:HHC:34717 decide whether the petitioner can be released on interim bail without compromising the further progress of the trial or not, and it is difficult for this Court to enlarge the petitioner on interim bail without being aware of the ground realities. 16. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed. 17. This order will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the learned Trial Court for seeking interim bail, which will be decided as per the law, without being in any manner influenced by anything said by this Court while deciding the present petition. 18. 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 18th August, 2026 (Nikita)