Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 604 (HP)

Dine Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-03

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 223 of 2023, dated 5.9.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner's marriage was solemnised with his wife for more than 17 years ago. Petitioner’s wife had gone to her parental home with her children on 4.9.2023. The petitioner went to bring them back but he was beaten in the house of his parents-in-law on 05.09.2023. The informant party is the aggressor. The petitioner has been in custody for more than one year and three months. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Tehsil Bali Chowki. He has deep roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. The injuries sustained by the victim are not dangerous to life. Hence, the petition. 2. A status report has been filed by the State asserting that the informant Heema Devi is the petitioner’s mother-in- law. Her daughter, Promila, was married to the petitioner 15 years before the incident. The petitioner had given beatings to his wife who complained to the Women's Police Station, Mandi. She and her children went to her maternal home. The petitioner visited the informant’s house 3-4 times and quarrelled with the informant. He went to the informant’s house on 4.9.2023 at 11.30 PM in a state of intoxication and started abusing and quarrelling with his wife and children. When the informant, her husband and her brother-in-law tried to pacify the petitioner, he went outside. He returned at 2.20 AM. He broke the lock put on the gate. When the informant tried to bolt the room, he pushed the door and stabbed the informant. She suffered multiple injuries. The petitioner’s wife woke up after hearing the cries and came to the spot. The petitioner also stabbed her. The people gathered on the spot and rescued the victims from the petitioner. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. He had sustained injuries and he was medically examined. The police recovered the articles and prepared the challan after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner also stabbed her. The people gathered on the spot and rescued the victims from the petitioner. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. He had sustained injuries and he was medically examined. The police recovered the articles and prepared the challan after the completion of the investigation. The matter was listed on 24.3.2025 and 25.3.2025 for prosecution evidence. 3. I have heard Mr. Lokesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr Lokesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Promila Devi had sustained grievous injuries which are not dangerous to life and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The petitioner has been in custody since 5.9.2023. There is a delay in the progress of the trial and the right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail application which was dismissed by this Court. The subsequent bail application only lies when there is a change in the circumstance. The petitioner has not pleaded any change in the circumstance and the present petition is not maintainable. The matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 24.3.2025 and 25.3.2025 and there is no delay in the progress of trial. Hence, 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. 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. 7. 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 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, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, 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 an 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 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) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2934 of 2023 and was dismissed on 12.1.2024. There is a force in the submission of Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State that subsequent bail petition will only lie if there is a change in the circumstance. It was held in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) Supp. There is a force in the submission of Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State that subsequent bail petition will only lie if there is a change in the circumstance. It was held in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) Supp. 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 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. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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 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.” 12. 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.” 13. 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 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. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for 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.” 14. 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 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.” 15. 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. 16. It was submitted that there is delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. This submission is not acceptable. The petitioner has not filed the copies of order sheets to show that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. The status report shows that the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 24.3.2025 and 25.3.2025. The fact that the learned Trial Court had fixed the prosecution case on two consecutive dates shows that the learned Trial Court is making all efforts to dispose of the case expeditiously. Hence the copies of order sheets were required to be filed to show that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, which is not attributable to the petitioner. In absence of the copies of the order sheets, the plea regarding the delay cannot be accepted. 17. This Court has already held in the previous bail petition that there was sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC inter alia. He had stabbed his wife and his mother-in-law in a state of intoxication. This shows the gravity of the offence, and the petitioner is not entitled to bail because of the gravity of the offence. 18. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 19. 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.