CRMPM/1970/2026 on 15 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1970 of 2026 Reserved on: 12.10.2026 Date of Decision15.10.2026

Shagun

…. Petitioner

Versus

State of HP

…. Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner

: Mr Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondent/ State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General with ASI Devinder Prakash I.O., P.S. Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 83 of 2023, dated 25.09.2023, registered at Police Station Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that as per the prosecution, the police intercepted the vehicles bearing registration No. HP-37F- 7813 and HP-37G-3170 on 25.09.2023 based on secret information. The driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-37G-3170 identified himself as Atul Kumar, whereas the driver of the car bearing registration No. HP-37F-7813 identified himself as Avikash Minhas. The person sitting on the passenger seat identified himself as Shagun (present petitioner). The police searched the vehicles in the presence of Kuldeep Chand and Vijay Kumar. They recovered one light pink carry bag from the dashboard of the car. The police checked the carry bag and found 1.056 kilograms of Charas in it. The police also subsequently arrested Khem Singh based on the disclosure statement made by the accused. These allegations are false. The petitioner is in custody for about three years, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2089 of 2025 and was dismissed by this Court on 22.09.2025. The co-accused Avikash Minhas was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP Criminal No. 10760 of 2025 decided on 22.06.2026. The police have cited 19 witnesses, out of whom statements of 11 witnesses have been recorded. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. Hence, the petition.

3. The State has filed a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 25.09.2023. They received secret information at Andreta Machiyal Chowk that a car bearing registration No. HP-37F-7813 and a Scooty bearing registration number HP-37G-3170 were transporting a huge quantity of charas. The police reduced the information to writing and waited for the vehicles. The police stopped the Scooty bearing registration No. HP 37G-3170 and the car bearing registration No. HP-37F- 7813. The driver of the Scooty revealed his name as Atul Kumar. The driver of the car identified himself as Avikash, and the person sitting on the passenger seat identified himself as Shagun (the present petitioner). The police checked the vehicles in the presence of Kuldeep Chand and Vijay Kumar and recovered a light pink carry bag containing 1.056 kg of charas from the dashboard of the car. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The police sent the charas to SFSL Junga, and it was confirmed to be charas containing 26.46% w/w resin after the analysis. The accused revealed during the investigation that they had purchased charas for ₹90,000/- from Khem Singh, who was arrested by the police. The call detail records showed that Avikash was in touch with Shagun, and Atul Kumar was in touch with Khem Singh. Their location was also found around the house of Khem Singh. The prosecution has cited 20 witnesses, out of whom statements of 10 witnesses have been recorded. The matter is listed before the learned trial court on 18.12.2026 and 21.12.2026. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Maan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The co-accused has been released on bail, and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner has remained in custody for about 3 years, and his right to speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent state, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of commercial quantity of charas. Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to the present case and the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

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

8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition which was registered as CrMP(M) No. 2089 of 2025 and was dismissed on 22.09.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra v. 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.

10. 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.”

11. 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.”

12. 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.”

13. 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, as

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 circumstances has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail applications need 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 circumstances 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 the 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 circumstances as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.”

14. Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court.

15. It was submitted that the co-accused Avikash Minhas has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

SLP Criminal No. 10760 of 2026, decided on 22.06.2026. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the appeal filed by Avikash Minhas and ordered him to be released on bail, subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the learned trial Court. The status report states that Avikash Minhas was driving the vehicle, in which the petitioner was sitting as a passenger. Once the driver has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

16. The status report shows that the police have cited 20 witnesses, out of whom the statements of 10 witnesses have been recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2023, and more than 3 years have elapsed since the petitioner’s arrest. It was rightly submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely waiting for the conclusion of the trial, and the prosecution has violated the petitioner's right to a speedy trial by not completing the evidence within three years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

17. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the learned Trial Court may deem fit.

18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

19. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District and Open-Air Jail, Dharamshala, and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

20. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while imposing terms and conditions of bail on the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.

21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) 15th October, 2026.

Judge.

(Ravinder)

Digitally signed by RAVINDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=35ecb6f93c6891a7dae90f163e34d7ecaa420b13af1363204ab0e0f5c87077dc, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=f6cc63c55495d14ce1f8623eacdb6cb9ef2c553803537a2f53c4ee637cbebaff, CN=RAVINDER KUMAR Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2026-10-15 14:46:28 RAVINDER KUMAR