Mohit Kumar vs State Of HP

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in a FIR No.43 of 2025 dated 26th March, 2025, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. He is in judicial custody and lodged in Kanda Jail, Shimla. The FIR was lodged after due deliberation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required; the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.1113 of 2025 and was dismissed on 21st June, 2025. He again filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.2498 of 2025 and was dismissed on 25th November, 2025. The prosecution has intentionally delayed the trial, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Kaithal in Haryana. He has sufficient movable and immovable property in his name. He belongs to a respectable family, and there is no likelihood of his jumping over the bail. The police have filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and the matter was listed for the prosecution evidence on 23rd April, 2026. 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 is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that he had gone to his room on 25.03.2025 at about 6:00 pm to drop off the articles belonging to Joginder. Sunil and Mohit were consuming liquor in the room. The informant left the articles in the room and came out. However, Joginder called him and told him to keep the articles in his room. The informant went inside the room; however, Sunil and Mohit did not permit him to pick up the articles. The informant telephoned Joginder and told him that he was not being allowed to take away the articles. Sunil and Mohit caught the informant by the neck and gave him a beating. He shouted for help. Sanjay came to the spot and rescued him. The informant sustained injuries in the incident. The police registered the FIR. The informant was taken to IGMC, Shimla, from where he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh. A notice was served upon Sunil and Mohit to join the investigation; however, they did not abide by the terms and conditions of the notice and ran away from the spot. They were apprehended near Kalka and were brought to Shoghi, where they were interrogated and arrested on 26.03.2025 at 5:35 pm. The informant/victim remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. He had sustained an injury to the head, which was dangerous to life. The challan was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 26.6.2025. FIR No. 210, dated 5.7.2015 and FIR No. 92/22 are registered against the petitioner. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 23rd April, 2026. Hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Hemant Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr Hemant Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution failed to complete the evidence within one year, 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, 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 two bail petitions, which were dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not pleaded any change in the circumstances in the present petition. The prosecution's evidence is being recorded, and there is no delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No.1113 of 2025 and Cr.MP(M) No.2498 of 2025 and were dismissed on 21st June, 2025 and 25th November, 2025. 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 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.

Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, wherein it was observed: -

It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous 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 a 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: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.

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 which 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 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 the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court.

This Court had held earlier that the petitioner was prima facie involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS, and he was not entitled to bail because of his conduct and criminal antecedents. These circumstances have not changed.

It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. This submission will not help the petitioner. The copies of the order sheets filed by the petitioner show that charges were framed on 27th September, 2025 and statements of three witnesses each were recorded on 31st October, 2025 and 2nd December, 2025. The statement of one witness was recorded on 20th January, 2026. This shows that statements of seven witnesses have been recorded during the last six months. The recording of statements of seven witnesses in six months does not show any delay in the progress of the trial; hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground that his right to a speedy trial is being violated.

No other point was urged.

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

The observation made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.