Satnam Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. `366 of 2024, dated 09.12.2024, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’)

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police were on patrolling duty on 09.12.2024. They received a secret information at 3:50 p.m. that Satnam (petitioner) was standing at the exit gate of Nalagarh Bus Stand with the intention to sell heroin. The police reduced the information into writing and went to the spot where the petitioner was found with a backpack. The police searched the backpack and recovered a motorcycle key, one wallet containing documents, ₹10,400/-, one transparent packet containing 44.125 grams of heroin and one saffron head scarf. The police subsequently searched the petitioner’s house on 11.09.2024, and recovered 60.24 grams of heroin during the search. The heroin was sent to SFSL. The charge sheet was filed after the completion of the investigation. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The recovery effected from the petitioner’s house cannot be connected to the petitioner. This Court had granted bail to the co-accused in Cr.MP(M) No. 1332 of 2025. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 594 of 2025, and was dismissed by this Court on 03.04.2024. The petitioner had again filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2289 of 2025, and was withdrawn on 29.10.2025. Hence, the present petition.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on a patrolling duty on 09.12.2024. They received a secret information at 3:50 pm that the petitioner, Satnam Singh, was carrying heroin in his backpack, and a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered from his search. The information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Supervisory Officer. The police associated two independent witnesses and went to the spot, where the petitioner was present. He had a carry bag containing 44.150 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner. He revealed during the interrogation that Sukhbir Singh had supplied heroin to him with a direction to take it to the Nalagarh bus stand, where someone would take the heroin and deliver ₹60,000/-. The petitioner was promised ₹2,000/- as commission. A photograph of heroin being weighed was found in the petitioner’s mobile phone. The police searched the petitioner’s house and recovered 60.420 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin. The petitioner disclosed during interrogation that Sukhvir Singh @ Sukhpreet Singh had supplied the heroin. The police arrested Sukhvir @ Sukhpreet on 03.02.2025. He revealed during the interrogation that heroin was to be supplied to Sandeep Jatt, who had transferred ₹10,000/- to Sukhpreet’s account in advance and ₹40,000/- on 09.12.2024. It was found that Sandeep Jatt had transferred ₹11,25,000/- to the account of Sukhpreet Singh. Police searched for Sandeep Jatt but could not apprehend him. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet 01.02.2025. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Sukhpreet Singh on 25.03.2025. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Sandeep Singh alias Jatt on 24.09.2025 before the learned Additional Special Judge, Nalagarh. The matter is listed on 07.05.2026; hence, the status report.

I have heard Mr Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Mr Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2024. More than one year and three months have elapsed since his arrest, and the prosecution has not completed the evidence. The petitioner’s right of speedy trial is being violated. No other F.I.R. is registered against the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been filed before the Court and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the drug trade, which harms society; hence, no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. Hence, 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 asserted in para 11 of the bail petition that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.594 of 2025, and was dismissed on 03.04.2025. He had filed another bail petition, which was registered as Cr. M.P(M) No.2289 of 2025, and it was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.10.2025. 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.

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:

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 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 not permissible to review the order passed by the Court.

It was submitted that the police have not completed prosecution evidence, and the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The status report mentions that the charge sheet was filed on 01.02.2025 and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution on 07.05.2026. The status report is silent regarding the number of witnesses cited and examined by the prosecution. The petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2024, and applying the principle of proportionality, the petitioner has already undergone a substantial part of the imprisonment, which can be awarded to him in case of his conviction. It was held by this Court in Shubham Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. 2026:HHC:6937 that where the accused has already undergone a substantial part of his imprisonment that can be awarded to him in case of his conviction, his further detention is not justified. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is entitled to bail because of the violation of his right to a speedy trial.

The status report mentions that no other F.I.R. is registered against the petitioner; hence, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and the apprehension of the prosecution that he would indulge in the commission of a similar crime in case of his release on bail does not have any foundation.

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, Sub Jail Kishanpura at Nalagarh, District Solan, 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 case's merits.