Yaseen vs State Of HP

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 16/2025, dated 16.03.2025, registered at Police Station Kihar, District Chamba, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 105 and 352 of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant and his cousin (since deceased) had gone to play cricket. The match stopped due to rain. The rain stopped at about 4:30 pm, and the petitioner, Yaseen, asked Kyum (since deceased) to start the match at 4:30 PM. Kyum declined by saying that he was to break the fast. An altercation ensued between the petitioner and Kyum. The informant tried to pacify the parties, but the accused inflicted a blow to Kyum with a bat on his face. Kyum fell, and the petitioner fled away from the spot. Kyum was carried to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The contents of the FIR show that the incident occurred without any premeditation. The petitioner and the deceased were good friends, and they were playing a match earlier. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. The petitioner had applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, which was registered as Bail Application No.142/2025 and was dismissed on 14.8.2025. The petitioner filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2205 of 2025 and was dismissed on 17.10.2025 on the ground that the investigation was continuing and the charge sheet had not been filed before the Court. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the trial has not progressed. Hence the petition.

The petition is opposed by filing the status report, asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that a cricket match was being organised on 16.03.2025. Kyum (since deceased) was one of the players. The match was stopped due to the rain. The rain stopped at about 4:30 pm, and the petitioner and Tashi told other people to resume the play. Kyum stated that he could not play because he had to break the fast. He started going towards his home. The petitioner asked him to complete the match. This led to an altercation between the petitioner and Kyum. The informant tried to pacify the parties, but the petitioner abused Kyum. He inflicted a blow with a bat on Kyum's face. Kyum fell. His face started bleeding. He was carried to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The police arrested the petitioner and investigated the matter. As per the report of the analysis, the DNA profile obtained from the petitioner's jacket, the lower and T-shirt of the deceased, soil and grass lifted from the spot, and the cricket bat matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood of the deceased. A mixed DNA profile was obtained from the petitioner's T-shirt, and one component matched the DNA profile of the deceased. The charge sheet was filed before the Court on 13.5.2025, and the matter is listed on 25.4.2026. The petitioner is involved in the commission of the heinous offence. He would influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Karan Sadyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr N.K. Thakur, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet but have failed to produce the evidence, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The petitioner is a young person, and his continued incarceration would adversely affect his chances of reformation. Therefore, 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 a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent bail petition lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change in the circumstances. 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. 2205 of 2025 and was dismissed on 17.10.2025. It was held in 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 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.

It was submitted that the police have filed a charge sheet, and this constitutes a change in the circumstances. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406: (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 542: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 295 that the filing of a charge sheet does not amount to a change in circumstances. It was observed:

"12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the fact that when a charge sheet is filed, it amounts to a change of circumstance. Needless to say, the filing of the charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the accused persons."

Thus, the petitioner cannot claim bail on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed.

It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the prosecution failed to produce the evidence. This submission cannot be accepted. The photocopies of the order sheets show that the charges were framed on 11.8.2025, and less than one year has elapsed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1363 that the custody of more than one year would not by itself entitle a person to bail in a crime like murder. It was observed at page 141:

"24. As pointed out earlier, one of the grounds for the grant of bail to the appellant Anil Kumar Yadav by the Sessions Court was that he was in custody for more than one year. In crimes like murder, the mere fact that the accused was in custody for more than one year may not be a relevant consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 3 SCC 7775:(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 743], it was observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688"

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail because of the delay in the progress of the trial.

No other point was urged.

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

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