IMPORTANT POINT
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.

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 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