1 ( 2026:HHC:3285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 2954 of 2025 Reserved on : 06.01.2026 Decided on : 09.01.2026 Gurwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor and Mr. Nitish, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. ________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS) for grant of bail in case FIR No. 321/2022, dated 06.12.2022, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, Police District Baddi, H.P., under Sections 302, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( for short “IPC”). 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the status report filed by the respondent-State, are that on 06.12.2022, one Nand Lal, 1. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:3285 Chairman, New Serenity Home Center, Nalagarh, made a complaint to the police, stating therein that a quarrel took place in the Center and a person, who sustained injuries in the quarrel, was taken to PGI Chandigarh for treatment. Later on, the police was informed that Deepak Kumar who sustained injuries died in PGI. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, police recorded statement of one Vikram Singh under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that as he was a drug addict so he was admitted in the Serenity Home Center on 20.11.2022. He further stated that during intervening night of 5/6.12.2022, at around 01:30 a.m., Sandeep Kumar, Gurwinder Singh (petitioner herein), Imran Khan and Hardeep Singh came inside the Center and Sandeep Kumar shouted the names of Sumit, Ashok, Deepak, Shivam and Amrit Pal. Accused Sandeep along with other accused persons slapped Deepak and they also took off the clothes of Sumit Kumar, Ashok, Deepak, Shivam and Amrit Pal and thereafter for about three hours, with intervals, the accused persons gave beatings to the above persons. Accused Hardeep Singh gave beatings with the help of bamboo stick. Later on, the accused persons left the 3 ( 2026:HHC:3285 spot, however, at around 07:00 a.m., in the morning, they again came back and gave beatings to the above five persons. Deepak was lying on the floor, who asked for water, so Vikram Singh and others gave him water and he fell unconscious. Thereafter, the accused persons came inside and made Deepak to wear clothes and took him outside. After half an hour, accused persons also took other injured persons out of the room. In his statement, Vikram Singh further disclosed that while the accused persons were giving beatings, they were also using abusive language and saying “how dare you brought chitta (heroin) inside.” Injured Deepak was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment, but later on he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Vikram Singh, police registered the case and the investigation commenced. 3. The police during the course of investigation, collected scientific samples, effected relevant recoveries and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Postmortem examination on the corpse of the deceased was conducted. Accused Imran and Hardeep were arrested on 07.12.2022. On 4 ( 2026:HHC:3285 19.01.2023, accused Sandeep @ Kola surrendered himself before the police. On 14.12.2022 the petitioner was arrested. 4. As per the prosecution story during interrogation, accused Hardeep got recovered the chappals and bamboo sticks, with which, he alongwith Goni @ Gurwinder Singh (petitioner herein), Imran and Happy @ Sukhwinder Singh gave beatings to Sumit, Ashok, Deepak, Shivam and Amrit Pal on 5/6.12.2022 in New Serenity Home, Nalagarh. During interrogation, petitioner Gurwinder Singh disclosed that on 5/6.12.2022, at about 1:30 A.M., he alongwith Hardeep, Imran, Happy @ Sukhwinder Singh gave beatings to Sumit, Ashok, Deepak, Shivam and Amrit Pal with chappals and bamboo sticks at Serenity Home, Nalagarh. On 25.02.2023 accused Sukhwinder Singh joined the investigation and disclosed that on 05.12.2022 he, alongwith Hardeep, Goni @ Gurwinder Singh, Imran, Arman and Jagota were sleeping in the upper floor of New Serenity Home Nalagarh. On that day, there was recovery party of Imran and after cutting cake at about 12:00 midnight they went to sleep. Around 1:30 A.M., in the hall where patients were sleeping, he heard loud noise. He went near window and 5 ( 2026:HHC:3285 heard other persons stating that Amit, Ashok and Deepak were sniffing some substance. He disclosed this fact to Sandeep and thereafter, Sandeep dislosed the same to Gurwinder. Sandeep and Imran went to the hall and personally searched Amit, Ashok and Deepak and recovered chitta from Deepak and on asking, Deepak disclosed that he was having chitta and he gave it to Amit, Ashok, Shivam and Amrit Pal. Thereafter, Hardeep went outside and brought a stick with him and gave blows to them with bamboo stick and chappals. Sandeep and Gurwinder also gave beatings to them with bamboo stick. He also slapped them as he was directed to do so by Gurwinder being their Manager. Hardeep, Gurwinder and Sandeep also asked all five boys to open their clothes and they were made to sit naked near the wall. All five boys were beaten for upto two hours and blood started oozing out from the ear of Deepak. Around 7:45 A.M., Sandeep told him that there is no movement in the body of Deepak and was taken to PGI Chandigarh, however, he succumbed to the injuries. 5. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely 6 ( 2026:HHC:3285 implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.12.2022 and the trial is not going to be completed in near future, as out of total 35 witnesses cited by the prosecution, till date, only 05 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated. 6. Per contra, the Deputy Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail as he has been found involved in a serious offence of murder and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence or may also flee from justice. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail applications. 7 ( 2026:HHC:3285 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General for the State and also carefully gone through the material available on record. 8. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred bail applications being Cr. MP(M) No. 2125 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023 and Cr. MP(M) No. 953 of 2024, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2024. 9. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing the accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There 8 ( 2026:HHC:3285 should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail. 10. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no changed circumstances, the successive bail application is nothing but review of the earlier application which cannot be maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5.6.2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ((2001) 1 SCC 169) and various other judgments.” 11. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “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 the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” 9 ( 2026:HHC:3285 12. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7SCC 528 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “20. "Before concluding, we must note though an accused has a right to make successive applications for 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 what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications………." 13. In Virupakshappa Gouda & another vs. State of Karnataka and another (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge- sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge- sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge……….” 14. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicates that successive bail applications are permissible under the 10 ( 2026:HHC:3285 changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 15. In the instant case, after the dismissal of the earlier bail applications, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. 11 ( 2026:HHC:3285 Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2022 and the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail on the ground of delay in trial. However, mere fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than three years is no ground to grant him bail, as the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. Although, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees speedy trial and an under trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail/custody for an indefinite period, but, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, as the petitioner is prima facie found involved in a serious offence of murder. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2007) 1 SCC 242 has held that when the gravity of offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the 12 ( 2026:HHC:3285 fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "16……………It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail." (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that where there is seriousness of the offence, the mere fact that the accused is languishing in jail during trial should not be the concern of the courts. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar." 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another) has held that three 13 ( 2026:HHC:3285 years incarceration would not itself entitle the accused-applicant to be released on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likelihood to be concluded in near future would be sufficient for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail considering the gravity of offence. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:- "14. We have already noticed from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the present accused had earlier made seven applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the High Court and some such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. It is seen from the records that when the fifth application for grant of bail was allowed by the High Court, the same was challenged before this Court and this Court accepted the said challenge by allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and another and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court as per the order of this Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-7- 2001 [Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 222] . While cancelling the said bail this Court specifically held that the fact that the present accused was in custody for more than one year (at that time) and the further fact that while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had given liberty to renew the bail application in future, were not grounds envisaged under Section 437(1)(i) of the Code. This Court also in specific terms held that the condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant 14 ( 2026:HHC:3285 on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." 20. Thus when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere long incarceration in jail as under-trial is not sufficient ground to enlarge an accused on bail if the facts & circumstances of the case and interest of the society do not warrant for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail. In the instant case, the trial is in progress and the case is being listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and there is every likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future, therefore, mere fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than three years is no ground to grant him bail. 21. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the earlier bail applications, there is no substantial change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. 15 ( 2026:HHC:3285 22. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, since the petitioner is behind the bars since 14.12.2022, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 23. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. ( Sushil Kukreja ) January 09, 2026 Judge (raman)