Raj Chander Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in an FIR No. 34 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, registered at Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police received information on 12.04.2024 at 3:46 PM regarding a firing incident at Village Purbani. The police went to the spot, where the informant told the police that she and the petitioner resided in the same building. She intended to erect a gate on the staircase. The mason was installing the gate when the petitioner and his wife came out and objected to its construction. This led to a quarrel between the parties. The petitioner went inside the house and returned with his licensed gun and fired shots. The petitioner had acted in the exercise of his right of private defence. The informant party had threatened the petitioner and his wife. The gunshot did not hit any person and was not intended to cause injury. The petitioner and his wife were not the aggressors. They had objected to the illegal construction of an iron gate, which would have obstructed the petitioner's ingress/egress. The co-accused was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, on 10.05.2024. The police have filed the chargesheet, and the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified. The petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was registered as CrMP(M) No. 1919 of 2024 and was dismissed on 16.10.2024. The petitioner preferred SLP (criminal) No. 18398/2024, which was dismissed on 06.01.2025. However, liberty was extended to the petitioner to file a petition for bail in case the prosecution failed to make reasonable progress in the trial. The petitioner filed a petition for interim bail, which was allowed by this Court on 27.06.2025. The petitioner had not misused the liberty extended to him during the interim bail. The statements of the informant and other witnesses have already been recorded. The petitioner is of advanced age. He is suffering from diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension and severe osteoarthritis in both legs, causing extreme pain to him. He is undergoing treatment at IGMC Shimla. The petitioner has three children, and the petitioner is required to arrange their educational expenses. 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 police received information on 12.04.2024 at 3:46 PM about a firing incident in village Purbani. The police reached the spot and found three women lying in an injured condition. They were taken to the hospital. Sheetal Negi, the informant, made a statement before the police that her brother, Nitesh Negi, was to be married w.e.f. 17.04.2024 till 20.04.2024. The informant and her younger sister visited their home on 11.04.2024. A gate was to be erected on the stairs on 12.04.2024. When the gate was being erected, the petitioner and his wife came out of their home and started arguing with the informant and her family members. Petitioner's wife pushed the gate, which fell on the informant's maternal aunt. The petitioner went inside and came out with the gun. He shot Krishan Leela in her stomach. When the informant tried to take care of injured Krishan Leela, the petitioner fired at Sweety Rani, the informant's sister. She sustained injuries to her neck. The petitioner fired at the informant's mother, but she escaped. The petitioner shot Bharti, who suffered injury on her left leg. The petitioner searched for the informant and her mother, but they concealed themselves. However, the petitioner saw the informant's mother and fired at her. Kalpana dragged the informant's mother, and she was saved. The petitioner searched for the remaining persons with the gun. The petitioner's wife\ was signalling to the people. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The gun was seized and sent to SFSL. As per the report, the cartridges recovered by the police could have been fired from the gun seized from the petitioner. The lead residue was detected on the gun. Bharti Devi remained admitted to the hospital w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 27.04.2024. Sweety Rani remained admitted to the hospital w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 18.05.2024, and Krishan Leela remained admitted w.e.f. 13.04.2024 till 28.07.2024 at IGMC, Shimla. The petitioner had shot at his sisters, his sister-in-law and his nieces. Krishan Leela had sustained serious injuries in the perineal region and is unable to walk. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of a similar offence. Five FIRs were registered against the petitioner. He was acquitted in three FIRs. FIR No. 1/2007 dated 16.10.2007, and FIR No. 92 of 2023 dated 18.09.2023 are pending disposal. The petitioner had remained at various places, and he could conceal himself in case of release on bail. The charge-sheet was filed before the Court on 22.08.2024, and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 03.09.2024. The statements of fourteen witnesses have been recorded; six witnesses have been given up. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had shot his sister Bharti, Krishan Leela, Sisters-in-law Gokul Kumari and nieces Rani and Sheetal Negi. Hence the status report.

I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms Swati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State and Mr R. K. Bawa, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr Abhinav Thakur, learned counsel for the informant victim.

Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner had not misused the concession of interim bail extended to him and will abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The prosecution is not likely to complete the evidence within a reasonable time. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He is residing in the same building in which the informant party is residing. He had shot at the informant party once, and he is likely to shoot them again in case of his release on bail. The petitioner himself had sought adjournments and cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

Mr R.K. Bawa, learned senior counsel, for the informant, submitted that the petitioner had shot his sister, sister-in-law, and nieces, which shows the heinous nature of the crime. There is no delay on the part of the prosecution, and the adjournments sought by the petitioner led to the delay. The petitioner was required to file a bail petition before the learned trial Court as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has not filed any bail petition before the learned trial Court, and the present petition is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made to 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. 1919 of 2024 and was dismissed on 16.10.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) No. 18398/2024, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 06.01.2025 and observe that the petitioner could renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court in case there was no progress in the trial in the 12 months from the date of the order. The record does not show that any bail petition was filed before the learned trial court after 06.01.2026. Sh. Ajay Kochhar, learned senior counsel, referred to a bail petition filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 24.05.2025, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. However, this bail petition was filed within twelve months and not after twelve months. Therefore, there is a force in the submission of Mr R. K. Bawa, learned senior counsel for the informant, that the present petition is not maintainable and the petitioner was required to approach the learned Trial Court for seeking bail.

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:

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:

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 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 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."

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.

It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission cannot be accepted. The statements of fourteen witnesses have been recorded, and eight witnesses have been given up by the learned Public Prosecutor. The certified copies of the order sheets filed by the petitioner also show that the matter was listed on 18.10.2024, when a prayer was made on behalf of the learned defence counsel for a longer date because the petitioner wanted to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of this Court. Hence, the learned trial Court listed the matter on 19.12.2024, on which date the charges were framed. Two witnesses were present on 15.10.2025, but they could not be examined because the petitioner's counsel had not visited Reckong Peo from Shimla. One witness, Dr Anubhav Singh, was present on 17.10.2025, but he could not be examined because the learned defence counsel had not appeared. Two doctors were present through video conferencing on 15.01.2026, but could not be examined because the learned counsel for the accused declined to cross-examine them by saying that he was not authorised. Again, an application was filed for the exemption of the learned counsel on 16.01.2026.

Therefore, it is apparent from the order sheets that the petitioner has not cooperated with the progress of the trial. Initially, he sought a longer date because he had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, his counsel did not appear, and the Court was forced to discharge the witnesses who were present. The learned trial Court had offered to provide the services of Legal Aid Counsel to the petitioner, but the petitioner declined to avail his services by saying that he had already paid the fee to his learned counsel. Therefore, the necessary condition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner and the co-accused are to operate with the progress of the trial is not satisfied, and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, and the bail cannot be granted to the petitioner when he is hampering the progress of the trial.

It was submitted that the petitioner is an aged and ill person. A reference was made to the medical record. This submission will not help the petitioner because the petitioner had sought an interim bail from this Court for his post¬operative care, which was allowed for a period of six weeks to enable him to recuperate on 27.06.2025. The copies of the OPD slip show that the petitioner is being taken to the hospital for post-operative treatment, and he cannot be held entitled to bail on this consideration.

No other point was urged.

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

The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

The present petition stands disposed of, and so does the miscellaneous petition, if any