2026:HHC:36278 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1492 of 2026 Decided on: 26.08.2026 Sumit Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has 'led the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 109 of 2025, dated 22.07.2025, registered for the commission of o2ences punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P. 2. It is asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police found the petitioner going towards Nagrota on 22.07.2025 at 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36278 about 10:45 a.m. The petitioner returned after seeing the police. He took out something from his right pocket and threw it on the roadside. The police apprehended the petitioner and checked the packet in the presence of the witnesses. 10.60 grams of heroin was found in the packet owned by the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The police have completed the investigation. Three witnesses have been examined during one year, and there is no chance of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him. 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 'ling a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 22.07.2025. They reached ahead of the Sunehar Bridge liquor shop at about 10:40 am and found the petitioner coming towards the police. He returned after seeing the police and walked towards the under- construction highway. He took something out of his right pocket and threw it on the roadside. The police apprehended the petitioner and associated two independent witnesses. The 3 2026:HHC:36278 petitioner identi'ed himself as Sumit Singh. The police checked the pouch thrown by the petitioner and recovered 10 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The heroin was sent to the SFSL, Junga, and as per the result of analysis, it indicated the presence of Diacetylmorphine (heroin). FIR No. 32/2023 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Line, Amritsar, for the commission of o2ences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC. The prosecution has cited 15 witnesses, out of whom three have been examined. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year and has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him in case of his conviction. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of one year, and the trial is not likely to be 4 2026:HHC:36278 concluded soon. The petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated, and the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to speedy trial. 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 had earlier 'led a bail petition which was dismissed by the Court. A subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. 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. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier 'led a bail petition which was registered as Cr. M.P No. 2458 of 2025 and was dismissed on 13.11.2025. 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: 5 2026:HHC:36278 “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 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 6 2026:HHC:36278 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 di2erent 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 7 2026:HHC:36278 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, as settled by law, is a change in the factual situation or law that requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier 'nding 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 o2ence the right to 'le a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely di2erent 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 di2erent Judges, there would be conIicting 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 circumstances as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to 'le a subsequent bail application.” 8 2026:HHC:36278 13. This Court had found while deciding the earlier bail petition that the petitioner was prima facie found in possession of 10 grams of heroin. The petitioner has 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 15 witnesses out of whom only statements of 3 witnesses have been recorded. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of 1 year, and the petitioner's right to speedy trial is being violated. This submission has to be accepted as correct. The status report shows that the matter is listed for evidence on 12.10.2026. The prosecution has cited 15 witnesses, out of whom only 3 have been examined. The petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2025, and he has already undergone more than 1 year of imprisonment. The petitioner was found in possession of 10 grams of heroin, and by applying the principle of proportionality, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner is not justi'ed. 9 2026:HHC:36278 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 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.” 16. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Amritsar. This was not stated to be incorrect. Therefore, 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 o2ences, 10 2026:HHC:36278 in case of his release on bail. This apprehension is not suKcient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be removed by imposing conditions. 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 inIuence 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 11 2026:HHC:36278 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. 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Lala Lajpat Rai District & Open-Air Correctional Home Dharamshala, District Kangra, 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 26th August, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.08.26 12:56:41 +0530