2026:HHC:34853 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1294 of 2026 Reserved on : 18.08.2026 Date of Decision: 18.8.2026. Beli Ram @ Belu Ram ….Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Suneet Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for regular bail in FIR No.88 of 2023, dated 04.07.2023, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police found the petitioner with a carry bag going towards 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34853 Damala Bridge on 04.07.2023 at about 3: oo p.m. The police asked the petitioner’s name, and the petitioner inquired about the identity of the police officials. The police officials showed their identity cards, after which the petitioner threw the carry bag and started running away. The police apprehended the petitioner and checked the carry bag. The police recovered 1.729 kilograms of charas from the carry bag. The police arrested the petitioner and sent the Charas to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The substance was found to be Charas after the analysis. These allegations are false. The police have not collected any call detail records or financial transactions to show the petitioner’s connection to the contraband. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty. The petitioner had earlier filed bail petitions before this Court, which were dismissed by the Court. The petitioner remained in custody for more than three years, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. 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 4.7.2023. 3 2026:HHC:34853 They found the petitioner with a carry bag at Khalet Ropa, at about 3:00 PM, going towards Damala Bridge. The police inquired about the petitioner’s name, and he asked about the identity of the police officials. The police officials showed their identity cards. The petitioner threw the carry bag and started running away. The police apprehended him and checked the carry bag in the presence of two independent witnesses. It was found to contain 1.729 kilograms of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. Charas was sent to the FSL, and as per the report of analysis, it was found to be an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. The prosecution has cited 15 witnesses, out of whom statements of 10 witnesses have been recorded; three witnesses were given up, and the matter is listed for 16.09.2026 for recording the statements of PW-3 and PW-13. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Suneet Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Suneet Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely 4 2026:HHC:34853 implicated. The police have not collected any call detail records or the financial transactions to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of three years since the petitioner’s arrest. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of charas and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has earlier filed a petition, which was dismissed by the Court, and a fresh bail petition lies only when there is a change in the 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. 5 2026:HHC:34853 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No.419 of 2025, and Cr.MP(M) No.968 of 2026, and were dismissed on 22.03.2025 and on 17.06.2026. It was held in the State of Maharashtra. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been 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:34853 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: 7 2026:HHC:34853 “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, 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 recognized principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are 8 2026:HHC:34853 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 circumstances 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 circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. The Court had earlier found, while deciding the petitioner’s bail petition, that the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of Charas. He had failed to satisfy the rigours laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. These considerations have not changed. 15. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s speedy trial. This submission will not help the petitioner. A Perusal of the status report shows that the prosecution has cited 15 witnesses, out of whom 10 witnesses have been examined, three 9 2026:HHC:34853 witnesses have been given up, and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of two witnesses on 16.09.2026. Thus, the prosecution evidence is almost complete, and the statements of only two witnesses are to be recorded, who have been summoned on 16.09.2026. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that the prosecution has not been able to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to speedy trial, is not established, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail at this stage. 16. Consequently, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed; however, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a petition in case the prosecution is unable to complete the evidence within a reasonable time. 17. 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 (Ravinder)