2026:HHC:35208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1165 of 2026 Reserved on : 19.08.2026 Date of Decision: 20.08.2026. Raj Chander Negi …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr Bhairv Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehira, Additional Advocate General. For the complainant/victim : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 34 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35208 Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had received information on 12.04.2024 at 3:46 PM regarding a firing incident at Village Purbani. The police went to the spot, where the informant told the police that she and the petitioner resided in the same building. She intended to erect a gate on the staircase. The mason was installing the gate when the petitioner and his wife came out and objected to its construction. This led to the quarrel between the parties. The petitioner went inside the house and returned with his licensed gun and fired shots. The petitioner had acted in the exercise of his right of private defence. The informant party had threatened the petitioner and his wife. The gunshot did not hit any person and was not intended to cause injury. The petitioner and his wife were not the aggressors. They had objected to the illegal construction of an iron gate, which would have obstructed the petitioner’s ingress/egress. The co-accused was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, on 10.05.2024. The police have filed the chargesheet, and the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified. The petitioner had filed a bail petition, 3 2026:HHC:35208 which was registered as CrMP(M) No. 1919 of 2024 and was dismissed on 16.10.2024. The petitioner preferred SLP (criminal) No. 18398/2024, which was dismissed on 06.01.2025. However, liberty was extended to the petitioner to file a petition for bail in case the prosecution failed to make reasonable progress in the trial. The petitioner filed a petition for interim bail, which was allowed by this Court on 27.06.2025. The petitioner had not misused the liberty extended to him during the interim bail. The statements of the informant and other witnesses have already been recorded. The petitioner is of advanced age. He is suffering from diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension and severe osteoarthritis in both legs, causing extreme pain to the petitioner. He is undergoing treatment at IGMC Shimla. The petitioner has three children, and the petitioner is required to arrange their educational expenses. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The statements of the informant and complainant have already been recorded by the learned trial Court on 11.08.2025 and 12.08.2025. The continuous pre-trial detention of the petitioner would amount to punishment, which is not justified. Hence, the present petition. 4 2026:HHC:35208 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information on 12.04.2024 at 3:46 PM about a firing incident in village Purbani. The police reached the spot and found three women lying in an injured condition. They were taken to the hospital. Sheetal Negi, the informant, made a statement before the police that her brother, Nitesh Negi, was to be married w.e.f. 17.04.2024 till 20.04.2024. The informant and her younger sister visited their home on 11.04.2024. A gate was to be erected on the stairs on 12.04.2024. When the gate was being erected, the petitioner and his wife came out of their home and started arguing with the informant and her family members. The petitioner's wife pushed the gate, which fell on the informant’s maternal aunt. The petitioner went inside and came out with the gun. He shot Krishan Leela in her stomach. When the informant tried to take care of injured Krishan Leela, the petitioner fired at Sweety Rani, the informant's sister. She sustained injuries to her neck. The petitioner fired at the informant's mother, but she escaped. The petitioner shot Bharti, who suffered an injury to her left leg. The petitioner searched for the informant and her mother, but they concealed themselves. However, the petitioner saw the 5 2026:HHC:35208 informant's mother and fired at her. Kalpana dragged the informant's mother, and she was saved. The petitioner searched for the remaining persons with the gun. The petitioner's wife was pointing towards the people, and the petitioner was shooting at them. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The gun was seized and sent to SFSL. As per the report, the cartridges recovered by the police could have been fired from the gun seized from the petitioner. The lead residue was detected on the gun. Bharti Devi remained admitted to the hospital w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 27.04.2024. Sweety Rani remained admitted to the hospital w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 18.05.2024, and Krishan Leela remained admitted w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 28.07.2024 at IGMC, Shimla. The petitioner had shot his sisters, his sister-in-law and his nieces. Krishan Leela had sustained serious injuries in the perineal region and is unable to walk. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence. F.I.R. No. 36 of 2008, dated 14.08.2008, under Section 279 of IPC and Section 185 of M.V. Act, F.I.R. No. 43 of 2008, dated 24.09.2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 379 and 323 of IPC, Police Station Rekong Peo and F.I.R. No. 31 of 2012 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 451 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Rekong Peo 6 2026:HHC:35208 and F.I.R No. 1 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007, under Section 420, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) PC Act Police Station SB & ACB Rekong Peo, H.P. were registered against the petitioner in which he has been acquitted. F.I.R. No. 92 of 2023, dated 18.09.2023, under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, Police Station Rekong Peo, H.P., is pending against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. A separate reply was filed on behalf of the informant asserting that the petitioner had shot his sister, sister-in-law and nieces, which shows the heinous nature of the crime. The petitioner fired five gunshots; the first was directed at his sister, and she suffered injuries to her stomach. The petitioner fired at other persons after reloading the gun. The petitioner’s act cannot be said to be in exercise of the private defence, but shows that the petitioner intended to shoot the informant, her mother and her other family members. The pendency of the civil suit has no relevance to the adjudication of the bail petition. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not cooperated with the progress of the trial. He sought interim bail from the Court and was granted six weeks' interim bail. He is not entitled to bail 7 2026:HHC:35208 merely because he had surrendered one day before the expiry of the period of interim bail. The petitioner is hale and hearty. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Bhairav Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Abhinav Thakur, learned counsel for the informant. 6. Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed on 06.01.2025 to conclude the trial within one year, and the time granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has elapsed. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, and the petitioner’s right to speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 7. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the copies of the order sheets show that the witnesses were present, but the petitioner was not ready to cross-examine them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically observed that the petitioner and 8 2026:HHC:35208 the co-accused were to cooperate with the progress of trial and they have failed to do so. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the delay in the progress of trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. Mr R.K.Bawa, learned Senior Advocate for the informant, submitted that the petitioner had shot his sister, sister-in-law and nieces and the offences are heinous in nature. The petitioner is delaying the progress of the trial, and he should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as CrMP(M) No. 1919 of 2024 and was dismissed on 16.10.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No. 18398/2024 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 06.01.2025 and observe that the petitioner could renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court in case there was no progress in the trial in the 12 months from the date of the order subject to the petitioner and co-accused 9 2026:HHC:35208 cooperating with the progress of the trial. It is also undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as CrMP(M) No. 484 of 2026 and was dismissed on 30.04.2026. 11. 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. 10 2026:HHC:35208 12. 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.” 13. 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. 14. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was observed: 11 2026:HHC:35208 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. 15. 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 which 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 12 2026:HHC:35208 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 circumstances as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.” 16. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 17. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission cannot be accepted. The statements of fourteen witnesses have been recorded, and eight witnesses have been given up by the learned Public Prosecutor. The certified copies of the order sheets filed by the petitioner also show that the matter was listed on 18.10.2024, when a prayer was made on behalf of the learned defence counsel for a longer date because the petitioner wanted to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of this Court. Hence, the learned trial 13 2026:HHC:35208 Court listed the matter on 19.12.2024, on which date the charges were framed. Two witnesses were present on 15.10.2025, but they could not be examined because the petitioner’s counsel had not visited Reckong Peo from Shimla. One witness, Dr Anubhav Singh, was present on 17.10.2025, but he could not be examined because the learned defence counsel had not appeared. Two doctors were present through video conferencing on 15.01.2026, but could not be examined because the learned counsel for the accused declined to cross-examine them by saying that he was not authorised. Again, an application was filed for the exemption of the learned counsel on 16.01.2026. 18. The matter was listed on 17.02.2026, when the statements of two witnesses were recorded. The statement of one witness each was recorded on 06.04.2026, 07.04.2026 and 20.04.2026. The order passed by the learned trial Court on 04.06.2026 mentions in para 20 that after the dismissal of the application by this Court on 30.04.2026, the petitioner filed another application under Section 348 of BNSS, corresponding to Section 311 of CrPC, for the recall of PW1 to PW3 for further cross-examination. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is not permitting the trial to progress and is putting every obstacle 14 2026:HHC:35208 by seeking adjournment due to the absence of the counsel and thereafter filing the applications for recall of the witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek bail on the ground that the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not been complied with because the order was subject to cooperation by the petitioner and the co-accused, which the petitioner has failed to extend. 19. Consequently, the present petition fails and is dismissed. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the learned trial Court if the evidence is not concluded within a reasonable time despite the cooperation of the petitioner and the co-accused. 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 20th August, 2026 (Ravinder)