A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; mere claims of delay in trial do not suffice if the trial is progressing normally.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the police had registered F.I.R. No. 178 of 2022, dated 14.09.2022, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342, 328, 420, 465, 471, 468 and 201 of IPC, at P.S. Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He will jointhe investigation as and when directed to do so. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP.(M) No. 2171 of 2023, and was dismissed on 09.11.2023. An F.I.R. No. 208 of 2022, dated 08.12.2022, was also registered against the petitioner at Police Station Sadar Bazar Merrut, U.P. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report stating that telephonic information was received on 14.09.2022, that three women and five men were found unconscious in different rooms of Hotel Himani. The Police recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar, who stated that one masked person demanded rooms on 11.09.2022. He produced an Aadhaar card of Sanjeev Kumar. Rooms No. 202, 203, 205, 206 and 102 were allotted to him. One lady called the caretaker, Nitu, from Room No. 205 and asked him to open the door. The rooms were checked, and persons were found unconscious. Some bottles of cold drinks and some boxes of sweets were found. The staff of the Hotel had not supplied these articles. Sanjeev Kumar had taken away the key after locking the persons. The police conducted the investigation and checked the CCTV Footage. The copy of the Aadhar Card was found to be fake. Sanjeev Kumar had taken the mobile phone and ATM cards of the victim and absconded. Information was given by the police of Police Station Meerut that the present petitioner was arrested in FIR No.208/2022, dated 08.12.2022, under Sections 420, 328, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, who disclosed that he had committed the offence at Solan. The production warrant was obtained. The petitioner was interrogated. The petitioner identified the rooms and the place where the mobile phone was thrown. Three keys to the rooms were found in possession of the petitioner. Blood and urine samples were sent to SFSL Junga, and Lorazepam and Tramadol were found in the samples. The challan has been presented against the petitioner. The matter is fixed for recording of the statement of the prosecution’s witnesses w.e.f. 09.07.2025 till 16.07.2025. The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, out of whom four witnesses have been examined, and21 witnesses are yet to be examined.

3. I have heard Mr. Pavinder, learned vice counsel, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Pavinder, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is a delay in the trial of the petitioner and right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated.

Hence, he prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. There is no change in the circumstances, and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. 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. It is undisputed that earlier the petitioner had filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP (M) No. 2171 of 2023, which was dismissed on 09.11.2023. 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, 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