2026:HHC:17429 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 493 of 2026 Reserved on: 7.5.2026 Date of Decision: 18.5.2026. Khekh Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 60 of 2025, dated 14.3.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20, 21 and 25 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:17429 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had recovered 6.52 grams of heroin and 6.88 grams of charas from the main accused. The petitioner has been impleaded under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The allegations against the petitioner are false. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest. The petitioner was involved in eleven cases, including the present one, out of which, eight cases are registered under the NDPS Act. He was acquitted in three cases and was sentenced in two cases. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 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 party was on patrolling duty on 14.3.2025. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-34E-4261 came to the spot at about 3.10 PM. The rider was not wearing a helmet. The police signalled him to stop, but he tried to turn and sped away. The police apprehended him and searched him in the presence of independent witnesses. The police recovered 6.88 3 2026:HHC:17429 grams of charas and 6.52 grams of heroin. The rider identified himself as Bhawan Sood. The police arrested him and seized the charas and heroin. He initially revealed that charas and heroin were purchased from a Nepali, but subsequently named the petitioner as the seller. As per the report of analysis, the heroin was confirmed to be a sample of diacetylmorphine and the charas was confirmed to be the extract of cannabis. The police obtained the call detail record and the bank account statement. The petitioner and Bhawan Sood (co-accused) had talked to each other 11 times from 1.1.2025 to 14.3.2025. Bhawan Sood paid ₹69,500/- to the petitioner on different dates. The police searched the petitioner’s house on 10.4.2024 and recovered the electronic weighing machine and a polythene bag containing some brown substance. The police seized them. These were sent to FSL, and as per the report, traces of diacetylmorphine (heroin) were found in the transparent poly packets. Eight FIRs were registered against the petitioner under the ND&PS Act, 02 FIRs were registered under the Forest Act, and 01 FIR was registered under Section 174-A of IPC. The petitioner was convicted in FIR Nos. 120 of 2011 and 85/15 and was acquitted in FIR No. 601 of 2008, 395 of 2009, 6 of 2013 and 110 of 2018. The charge sheet 4 2026:HHC:17429 was filed before the Court on 9.5.2025. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses out of 25 witnesses cited by it. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 23.6.2026 and 24.6.2026. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime. No recovery was effected from him. More than one year has elapsed since the petitioner’s arrest, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy 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 before this Court, which was dismissed. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before the 5 2026:HHC:17429 Hon’ble Supreme Court. The subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petition does not mention any change in the circumstances. 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.MP(M) No. 1895 of 2025 and was dismissed on 30.8.2025. The petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15128 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, but withdrew it on 29.1.2026. It was held in the State of Maharashtra. Vs. 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 6 2026:HHC:17429 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: 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 7 2026:HHC:17429 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 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 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 circumstance creates in a 8 2026:HHC:17429 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 circumstance 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. It has been submitted that the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment, which can be awarded to him, considering the quantity of heroin stated to be found in his possession. The police have not completed the evidence, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. This submission has to be accepted as correct. 15. The status report mentions that the police had recovered 6.52 grams of heroin and 6.88 grams of charas from 9 2026:HHC:17429 Bhuwan Sood. The petitioner was arrested based on the statement made by Bhuwan Sood. The police searched the petitioner’s house and recovered a polythene bag containing traces of heroin. The petitioner was arrested on 10.4.2025. This shows that the petitioner has undergone about one year’s imprisonment. 16. The Central Government has specified 250 grams of heroin as the commercial quantity, which means that the person possessing 250 grams of heroin can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years. If the principle of proportionality is applied, the petitioner has undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment that can be awarded to him. This Court held in Shubham Chaudhary vs State of H.P 2026: HHC:6937 that where the accused has already undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment which can be awarded to him in case of his conviction, his further detention is not justified. The petitioner has also undergone a substantial part of his imprisonment that can be awarded to him in case of his conviction, and his further detention in custody is not justified. 10 2026:HHC:17429 17. It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is not entitled to bail on this consideration. 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 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.” 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: - 11 2026:HHC:17429 (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. 19. 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. 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Kullu, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 12 2026:HHC:17429 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 18th May, 2026 (Chander) CHANDER SHEKHAR Digitally signed by CHANDER SHEKHAR Date: 2026.05.18 13:18:21 +0530