Rajinder Singh vs State Of H.P.

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 178 of 2022, dated 14.09.2022, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 328, 420, 465, 471, 468 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, three women and five men were found unconscious in different rooms of Hotel Himani on 14.09.2022. The police of Police Station Meerut, U.P., arrested the petitioner, and he disclosed his involvement in the commission of the crime. The police sought the petitioner’s custody by the issuance of a production warrant. The petitioner identified the room and the place where the mobile phone was thrown. Three keys to the rooms were found in the petitioner’s possession. The blood samples indicated the presence of Lorazepam and Tramadol. The police have filed the charge sheet, and no recovery is to be made from he petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.04.2023. More than two years have elapsed since the arrest of the petitioner. The prosecution has not completed the evidence. Prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, out of whom four witnesses have been examined. The petitioner had earlier filed t e bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2171 of 2023 and Cr.MP(M) No. 880 of 2025 and were dismissed on 09.11.2023 and 08.05.2025, respectively. The petitioner had also filed one CWP No.11357 of 2025 in which he challenged the legality of his arrest. An FIR No. 208 of 2022 dated 08.12.2022 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Meerut, U.P. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report stating that a telephonic information was received on 14.09.2022, that three women and five men were found unconscious in different rooms of Hotel Himani. The police recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar, who stated that one masked person demanded rooms on 11.09.2022. He produced Sanjeev Kumar’s Aadhaar card as proof of identification. Rooms No. 202, 203, 205, 206 and 102 were allotted to him. One lady called the caretaker, Nitu, from Ro m No. 205 and asked him to open the door. The rooms we e checked, and persons were found unconscious. Some bottles of cold drinks and some boxes of sweets were found. The Hotel had not supplied these. Sanjeev Kumar had taken away the key after locking the persons. The police investigated the matter and checked the CCTV Footage. The copy of t e Aadhar Card was found to be fake. Sanjeev Kumar had taken the mobile phone and ATM cards of the victim and absconded. Information was given by the police of Police Station Meerut that the present petitioner was arrested in FIR No.208/2022, dated 08.12.2022, under Sections 420, 328, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, who disclosed that he had committed the offence at Solan. The production warrant was obtained. The petitioner was interrogated. The petitioner identified the rooms and the place where the mobile phone was thrown. Three keys to the rooms were found in the possession of the petitioner. Blood and urine samples were sent to SFSL Junga, and Lorazepam and Tramadol were found in the samples. The challan has been presented against the petitioner. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, out of whom four have been examined. The matter was listed for recording the statement of prosecution witnesses on 02.09.2025. Hence, the status rep rt.

I have heard Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, f r the respondent/State.

Mr K.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been behind the bars for more than two years. The prosecution has not completed the evidence. The statements of four witnesses have been recorded, and the statements of 21 witnesses are yet to be recorded. The trial is not likely to be concluded soon. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, he has criminal antecedents, and the chance of the petitioner repeating the crime cannot be ruled out. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

It was specifically men ioned in para 9 of the petition that the petitioner had filed a Cr.MP(M) No. 2171 of 2023 and 880 of 2025, which were dismissed by this Court. It was held in 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 n ted 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 espondent. It is true that successive bail applications a e permissible under the changed circumstances. B t 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 es judicata are not applicable to bail applications, b t the repeated filing of bail applications witho t there being any change of circumstances w uld 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 act situation or law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become bs lete. 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 j dge to consider the application and a person's right based n 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.

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. A perusal of the certified copies annexed to the petiti n shows that learned counsel for the petitioner had sought adjournments on 22.09.2023, 02.11.2023, 06.12.2023 and 03.01.2024. The learned Trial Court framed the charges on 07.05.2024, therefore, the Trial could not commence till 07.05.2024 due to the non-cooperation of the petitioner. The order sheets show that the statements of three witnesses have been recorded after framing of the charges, and the matter is now listed for 10.12.2025, 11.12.2025 and 12.12.2025. Since a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, hence, the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial cannot be accepted.

No other point was urged.

Consequently, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time.

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