Inderjeet Singh @ Indu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 46 of 2024 dated 10.04.2024 registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmaur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 147, and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

It has been asserted that the police have filed a charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, on 08.07.2024, who committed it to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. The matter is listed for the prosecution evidence. Statements of 15, out of 34 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been recorded. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1832 of 2024, and was dismissed on 18.09.2024. He subsequently filed Bail Petitions Nos. 1198 of 2024, 2970 of 2024, 211 of 2025, 1504 of 2025 and 169 of 2025, which were withdrawn. The petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The petitioner has remained in custody since April, 2024, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. 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.

The petition was opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant/victim made a complaint to the police stating that on 10.04.2014, he was present at his home. Petitioner Inderjeet Singh @ Indu Gurvinder @ Vinder and two other persons came to his house. Gurvinder @ Vinder and Inderjeet @ Indu shot at the informant and his sister to kill them. The accused ran away from the spot after the incident. The incident occurred because Gurvinder @ Vinder knew the girl, who was a tenant in the informant's house. Gurvinder @ Vinder had quarrelled with her on 09.04.2024. The informant asked the tenant to vacate her room, after which Gurvinder @ Vinder collected various persons and shot at the informant and his sister. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police did not find any empty cartridges on the spot, but found a residual bullet in the last pillar. The informant and his sister would have suffered a fatal injury from the gunshots fired at them. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. They were interrogated, and they made separate statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of country-made pistols (Kattas). The police prepared their sketches and seized them. Gurvider also got recovered one motorcycle used by him during the incident. 3 FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, Inderjeet Singh @ Indu. The petitioner would commit a similar crime in case of his release on bail. The challan was presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib on 08.07.2024. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, released the accused Mukesh, Balpreet and Mahesh on bail. Hon'ble Supreme Court has released the accused Gurvinder @ Vinder on bail on 15.04.2026. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. Three FIRs are pending before various Courts against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence if released on bail. 29 out of 34 witnesses have been examined. The matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 07.05.2026 and 08.05.2026. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Mr Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has released the co-accused Gurvinder alias Vinder on bail. The status report mentions that he is the gang leader. The petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of two years, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed various bail petitions, which were dismissed by the Court. The 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.

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr. MP(M) No. 1832 of 2024 and was dismissed on 18.09.2024. He had also filed various other bail petitions, which were withdrawn by him. 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:

"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.

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."

A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed:

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."

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."

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 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 applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application."

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.

It is undisputed that co-accused Gurvinder alias Vinder had filed a Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was registered as SLP Criminal No. 18851 of 2025, and was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.04.2026. It was held that Gurvinder was in custody since 13.04.2024, and his continued incarceration was not warranted at this stage. The status report specifically mentions that Gurvinder was the gang leader, and the petitioner is a member of the gang. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the continued incarceration of Gurvinder was not justified, the petitioner's incarceration also cannot be held to be justified.

It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and he is not entitled to bail. This submission cannot be accepted. 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."

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.

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.

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.