Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jagdev Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 March, 2025
2025:HHC:7280 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) Nos. 204, 205 and 206 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.3.2025 Date of Decision: 22.03.2025.
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 204 of 2025 Jagdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 205 of 2025 Rahul Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
3. Cr.MP(M) No. 206 of 2025 Aditya ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:7280 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions.
For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, in all the petitions, with ASI Dinesh Kumari, IO, Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested vide FIR No. 175 of 2024, dated 28.7.2024, at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 249 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is pending for committal to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The statements of the witnesses Aditya @ Kanu and Vinod Kumar, recorded under Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhta, show that a concocted version was presented before the Court. The investigation is biased. There are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the incident. The injured was admitted to a private hospital, and FIRs have been 3 2025:HHC:7280 registered against the hospital for illegal activities. The informant party got a forged report prepared from the hospital. No independent witness was associated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that Pawan Kumar informed the police on 27.07.2024 at about 9:14 PM that Vinod and Kannu were injured by Aditya and his friends by using darat. They were taken to different hospitals for treatment. The police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim, Aditya, who stated that he and his friend Vinod Kumar, alias Viku, had gone towards Ganoh on 27.07.2024. They reached Ganoh Bazar Chowk at 7:15 PM. They were taking juice when Aditya Dadwal, Jagdev Dadwal and Rahul Kumar came to them and said that they were roaming around in the bazaar after pretending to be Don. Vinod enquired as to why the accused party was using such language. The accused started arguing with the informant party and also pushed them. Aditya Dadwal brought Darat and inflicted a blow on the head of Vinod. He also inflicted blows on the right arm of the victim/informant, Aditya. Jagdev Dadwal inflicted blows 4 2025:HHC:7280 using stones, and Rahul Kumar gave beatings with kicks and fists blows. The accused ran away in their vehicle bearing registration No. HP38D-7272. The police conducted the investigation and arrested the accused near the Hollywood Hotel. The accused, Aditya, made a disclosure statement and got recovered a darat with which the injuries were inflicted. The police seized darat. The articles were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and blood was found on the soil, glove, cotton swabs, T-Shirt and Pants of Aditya, T-Shirt, Vest, Underwear and Pants of Vinod Kumar and darat. As per the report, DNA from the blood on the rexine piece matched with the DNA of Aditya. DNA from the soil, glove and darat matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar. DNA from the T-shirt of Aditya matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. DNA from the Pants of Aditya matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. DNA from the pants of Vinod Kumar matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. As per the medical report, the injuries sustained by the victim were dangerous and could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. FIR No. 357 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner Jagdev Singh, and he was acquitted on 11.6.2014. FIR No. 133 of 2022, dated 28.4.2022, was registered against the 5 2025:HHC:7280 petitioner Jagdev, and he was acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, on 8.3.2025. The petitioners can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is a variation in the FIR and the statements recorded during the investigation, which is sufficient to make the prosecution case doubtful. The police have already filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody. The FIRs were registered against the hospital from where the medical opinion was sought. The genuineness of the medical opinion is highly doubtful. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.
6
2025:HHC:7280
6. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioners were involved in a heinous offence. This Court has already rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioners. There is no change in the circumstances; therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -
"12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
"14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression "any condition ... otherwise in the interest of justice", has been construed in several 7 2025:HHC:7280 decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose "any condition" on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: --
"15. The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed." (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed:
"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration 8 2025:HHC:7280 while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The present petitions have to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. It is undisputed that petitioners Jagdev Singh and Rahul had filed bail petitions which were registered as Cr.MP(M) Nos. 2162 and 2164 of 2024 and were dismissed on 21.10.2024. 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, 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 9 2025:HHC:7280 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.
11. Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, wherein it was observed: -
8. 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.
12. Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to 10 2025:HHC:7280 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."
13. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed:
9. 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."
14. 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 11 2025:HHC:7280 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."
15. It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551 that successive bail application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstance, which means the 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 circumstance. 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, change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutatory principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on 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 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 12 2025:HHC:7280 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."
16. Therefore, the present bail petitions 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.
17. It was submitted that a charge sheet has been filed and this is a change in circumstance. 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 filing of charge sheet does not amount to 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 factum that when a charge sheet is filed it amounts to a change of circumstance. Needless to say, 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 13 2025:HHC:7280 investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the accused persons."
18. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim the bail on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed.
19. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, took this Court through the statements of Vinod Kumar and Aditya and the contents of the FIR to submit that the prosecution case has been changed and the prosecution case is made highly doubtful. However, it is not permissible to examine the statements and the FIR to identify discrepancies and determine whether they are trivial or material. The Court, while granting bail, only determines the prima facie case. It is, therefore, impermissible to record any such findings as are being sought from this Court. Suffice it to say that the status report shows that the darat used as a weapon of the offence had the DNA profile of victim Vinod Kumar. This darat was got recovered by petitioner Aditya, which shows his prima facie involvement in the commission of a crime. The other accused were already in consent with him and will be prima facie liable by virtue of Section 3(5) of BNS.
14
2025:HHC:7280
20. It was submitted that the FIRs were registered against the hospital for issuing false certificates. This shows that the medical evidence cannot be relied upon. This Court is to accept the material collected by the police as correct at this stage, and it is impermissible to discard the material as false simply because some FIRs were registered against the hospital.
21. The trial has not commenced, and there is a force in the submission of Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State that petitioners can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had attacked the informant party with deadly weapons, releasing the petitioners on bail can interfere with the fair trial.
22. In view of the above, the petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage. Hence, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. However, it is expressly made clear that in case of unreasonable delay not attributable to the petitioners, they will have a right to apply for fresh bail.
15
2025:HHC:7280
23. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd March, 2025 (Chander)