Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 21.08.2025 vs State Of H.P on 27 August, 2025
2025:HHC:28898 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1137 of 2025 Reserved on: 21.08.2025 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 Nisha Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender K. Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 112 of 2023, dated 17.12.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P.
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner and her son, Harsh, were seen by Manjeet Singh 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:28898 throwing wood in their field. Harsh had an iron rod, and the petitioner had Darat. Harsh inflicted injuries upon the informant Manjeet Singh and his father with an iron rod. The police registered the FIR. The victim died on 03.03.2024, and the police added an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The petitioner is innocent, and she was falsely implicated. The spot where the quarrel occurred is located in the courtyard of the petitioner's house. The petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2024, and she has been behind the bars since then. The petitioner's husband had a brain haemorrhage that led to paralysis on 17.02.2024. The petitioner's husband is bedridden, and there is no one to look after him. The petitioner has one major and one minor girl who are dependent upon her. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 535 of 2024, and was dismissed by this Court on 27.06.2024. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3
2025:HHC:28898
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that Rakesh Kumar Pardhan Gram Panchayat, Kharyalata, made a call to the police post-Zol on 17.12.2023 that the family members of Narender Kumar and Dharam Singh were quarrelling with each other. The police went to the spot for verification of the information and found that the parties had been taken to the hospital. The police reached the hospital and found that Manjeet Singh and his father were admitted to the hospital. Manjeet Singh had sustained an injury by a sharp- edged weapon, whereas Dharam Singh had sustained an injury by a blunt-edged weapon. Manjeet Singh made a statement on 17.12.2023 that he and his father, Dharam Singh, were returning from their fields. Petitioner Nisha Devi and Harsh Dhiman had thrown wooden sticks in their fields. When the informant Manjeet Singh tried to remove the wooden sticks, Harsh stopped Dharam Singh and enquired as to why he was removing the sticks. Harsh was armed with an iron rod, and petitioner Nisha Devi was armed with a Darat. Harsh inflicted an injury by means of an iron rod on the head of Dharam Singh. Manjeet Singh tried to save his father, but Harsh inflicted a blow by means of an iron rod upon his head. The petitioner also started quarrelling with 4 2025:HHC:28898 the informant and his father. The informant and his father sustained injuries. The police conducted the investigation and recovered the iron rod from Harsh. Dharam Singh was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh, for further treatment. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, he had sustained grievous injuries, which were dangerous to life. The police arrested Harsh and the petitioner. The clothes were sent for analysis, and it was found that the blood of group 'O was found on the clothes of Dharam Singh and the iron rod. Dharam Singh died in the hospital. The cause of death was septic shock as a consequence of head injury, as per the report of the Medical Officer. The police added Section 302 of the IPC and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and her son. The matter was listed on 19.06.2025.
3. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that she was falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to complete 5 2025:HHC:28898 the evidence despite the lapse of 1½ years from the date of the petitioner's arrest. Certified copies of the order sheets show that the prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses on the date fixed. The learned Trial Court has also not summoned all the witnesses, and only the first four witnesses have been summoned for 03.09.2025 and 08.09.2025. The trial is not likely to conclude at this pace. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner and her son had caused fatal injuries to the victim and grievous injury to the informant. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of her release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 535 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.06.2024. It was held in State of 6 2025:HHC:28898 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.
8. 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:
7
2025:HHC:28898 "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."
9. 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.
10. 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.8
2025:HHC:28898
11. 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 9 2025:HHC:28898 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."
12. 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.
13. Perusal of the certified copies of the order-sheets maintained by the learned Trial Court shows that the matter was under objection on 31.07.2024 and the matter was listed on 09.09.2024 for removing the objection. An adjournment was sought on 09.09.2024, 17.10.2024 and 27.11.2024 for consideration of the charge. The charges were framed on 28.12.2024, and the matter was listed on 11.02.2025 for the fixation of evidence. On 11.02.2025, the matter was simply adjourned for 24.03.2025. On 24.03.2025, witnesses at Sr. No. 1 to 3 were summoned for 18.06.2025 and witnesses at Sr. No. 4 to 8 were summoned for 19.06.2025. No witness was present on 18.06.2025 and 19.06.2025, and the matter is listed on 03.09.2025 and 8.09.2025 for the examination of PWs 1 & 2 and 3 & 4, respectively.
10
2025:HHC:28898
14. These orders show that the adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner on three occasions for the consideration of the charge. The Court had also listed the matter for the fixation of evidence and adjourned the matter without assigning any reason on one day. The prosecution also failed to produce the witnesses on 18.06.2025 and 19.06.2025. Therefore, the petitioner, the prosecution and the Court were at fault for the delay in the examination of the witnesses. Since a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, therefore petitioner cannot be released on bail on the ground that her right to a speedy trial is being violated.
15. The status report shows that Dharam Singh (since deceased) had sustained grievous injuries by means of a blunt weapon. The cause of death was septic shock, caused by the head injury. As per F.I.R., the petitioner was armed with a Darat; thus, the medical evidence does not show that the petitioner had caused any injury to deceased Dharam Singh.
16. A similar situation arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul Singh vs. State of H.P. bearing SLP (CRL.) No.6191/2025 decided on 28.07.2025, wherein the Hon'ble 11 2025:HHC:28898 Supreme Court noticed that the fatal injuries were caused by the co-accused. It was observed:
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case where the role of causing fatal injury is specifically attributed to co-accused, Aditya, from whom recovery of the weapon of assault is said to have been made. There are other incriminatory recoveries, such as of blood-
stained clothes, etc., which are all from the other accused and not from the appellant. It is next contended that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents, and if he is admitted to bail, there is no likelihood of him misusing the same
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the main role of causing injury to the deceased was ascribed to the co- accused and there were no criminal antecedents, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail pending trial. It was observed:
"6. We have considered the rival submissions. Having regard to the fact that no specific role is attributed to the appellant in the first information report and the main role of causing injury to the deceased is ascribed to co- accused, Aditya, from whom incriminatory recovery is made and that the respondent-State has failed to point out any criminal antecedents of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, pending trial."
18. In the present case, also the main role has been ascribed to the co-accused, who had caused injuries No.1 and 2 by means of a blunt weapon, namely, an iron rod, which proved 12 2025:HHC:28898 to be fatal. As per the F.I.R., no injury was caused by a sharp- edged weapon, namely 'Darat', wielded by the petitioner. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
19. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will she influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend each and every date of hearing and shall 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, the Police Station concerned, and the Trial Court, and she will furnish her local address to the concerned Police Station.
(IV) The petitioner will surrender her passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish her 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 13 2025:HHC:28898 social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.
20. 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.
21. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Una at Bangrah, District Una, H.P. and the learned Trial Court through FASTER.
22. 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.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th August 2025 (ravinder) Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d RAVINDE 7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc , PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8 R KUMAR 623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee6 37cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025-08-27 12:18:58