2026:HHC:39400 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1452 of 2026 Reserved on: 11.9.2026 Decided on: 16.9.2026 Vinod Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Bhavya Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 41 of 2025, dated 08.05.2025, registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ('NDPS Act'). 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have completed the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39400 investigation and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 132 grams of cannabis, which is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year and his 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 had set up a nakka at Tunuhatti on 08.05.2025. They intercepted a bus bearing registration No. HP73-8890 and found the petitioner occupying seat No.20, having a carry bag. The police checked the carry bag in the presence of Mohit Sharma and lady constable Shivani and found 132 grams of charas. Police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to the FSL and was found to contain an extract of cannabis. FIR Nos. 24/2016, 48/2021, and 17/2021 are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in FIR Nos. 46/2011, 08/2011, 92/2013, 132/2011, 3 2026:HHC:39400 59/2015, 15/2017, 118/2018 and 126/2018. He was acquitted in FIR No. 107/2012. The charge-sheet was filed before the Court on 05.07.2025. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom statements of three witnesses have been recorded. The matter is listed for recording the statements of witnesses at Serial Nos. 2, 9, 4, 5, and 13 with effect from 15.09.2026 till 17.09.2026. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Ms. Bhavya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 5. Ms. Bhavya 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 despite the lapse of more than one year and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. The police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the 4 2026:HHC:39400 Court may impose. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy 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 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 filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2675 of 2025 and was dismissed on 23.01.2026. It was laid down in the State of Maharashtra v 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 5 2026:HHC:39400 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 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: 6 2026:HHC:39400 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 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 7 2026:HHC:39400 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 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 based on the change in the circumstances, and it is impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. A perusal of the earlier bail order shows that the Court had held that the petitioner was prima facie involved in the commission of an offence, he had criminal antecedents, and he was not entitled to bail. These considerations have not changed. 8 2026:HHC:39400 15. It was submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. This submission has to be accepted as correct. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 132 grams of charas. The Central Government has notified 1.00 kg. of charas as commercial quantity, which means that a person possessing 1.00 kg. of charas can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years. If the principle of proportionality is applied, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of imprisonment that can be awarded to him in case of conviction, and his further detention is not justified. 16. The status report also mentions that the matter is listed before the learned Trial Court on 15.09.2026 to 17.09.2026 for recording the statements of witnesses at Serial Nos. 2, 9, 4, 5, and 13. Thus, it is apparent that the learned Trial Court has not even summoned all the witnesses, which shows that the learned Trial Court is not interested in expeditious conclusion of the trial. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of violation of his right to a speedy trial. 9 2026:HHC:39400 17. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is not entitled to bail. This submission will not help the prosecution. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024:INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused when no prima facie case is made out against him. 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.” 18. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody because of criminal antecedents when he has undergone a substantial part of imprisonment. 19. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Hoshiarpur, Punjab, which was not stated to 10 2026:HHC:39400 be incorrect in the status report. It means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 20. 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 influence 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 intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 11 2026:HHC:39400 21. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 22. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Chamba, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 23. 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 16th September, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.09.16 14:45:51 +0530