2026:HHC:10484 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 360 of 2026 Reserved on: 1.4.2026 Date of Decision: 7.4.2026. Swaran Singh @ Kuka …. 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 Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 6 of 2025, dated 10.1.2025, registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police searched the petitioner’s house on 10.1.2025 and recovered 882 grams of charas, a weighing machine and ₹8,000/-. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:10484 petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2197 of 2025 and was withdrawn on 8.9.2025. The petitioner had also filed another bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.824 of 2025 and was dismissed on 4.6.2025. The investigation is complete, and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in custody for one year and two months. The prosecution has failed to complete the trial, and this violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. FIR No.122 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner, in which he was acquitted. 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 present at Harchakian on 10.01.2025. They received a secret information at 04:20 pm that the petitioner, Swaran Singh, was selling charas to the people, and in case of a search, a huge quantity of charas could be recovered from him. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kangra. The police associated Panchayat Pradhan, Tilak Raj and 3 2026:HHC:10484 Up-Pradhan, Onkar Singh and went to the cow shed of the petitioner. The petitioner was found sitting on a cot outside the cowshed. He became frightened after seeing the police. The police found charas, ₹8,000/-, and a digital weighing machine. The police weighed charas and found its weight to be 882 grams. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. A sample of charas was sent to FSL, and as per the result of the analysis, it was found to be an extract of cannabis. The police had filed the charge sheet before the Court on 07.03.2025, and the matter is listed on 2.4.2026, 4.4.2026, 16.4.2026 and 17.4.2026 for prosecution evidence. Two witnesses out of sixteen have already been examined. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy 4 2026:HHC:10484 trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change in the circumstance and he is not entitled to bail. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, and there is no delay in the progress of the trial. 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 filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.824 of 2025 and was dismissed on 4.6.2025. The petitioner had filed another petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.2197 of 2025 and was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.9.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a 5 2026:HHC:10484 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 consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications 6 2026:HHC:10484 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.” 12. It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail 7 2026:HHC:10484 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 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 circumstance has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs 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 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 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 circumstance as claimed by the 8 2026:HHC:10484 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. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which is violative of the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. This submission cannot be accepted. The status report mentions that statements of two witnesses out of sixteen have already been recorded. The matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 2.4.2026, 4.4.2026, 16.4.2026 and 17.4.2026. The fact that the matter is listed on four dates for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses shows the concern of the learned Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial. 15. No other change in the circumstances has been shown since the passing of the order in the earlier bail petition; therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail. 16. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 9 2026:HHC:10484 17. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a bail petition in case his trial is not concluded expeditiously. 18. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 7th April, 2026 (Chander)