Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Jony - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2386 of 2024.
Decided on : 03-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

A material change in circumstances is required for reconsideration of bail applications; otherwise, previous denials remain binding.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 20 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of 1.114 kgs of cannabis - Previous bail applications dismissed due to lack of change in circumstances - Court emphasized that subsequent applications require substantial changes to be considered - Judicial discipline mandates that the same judge should hear successive bail applications. (Paras 7-12)

(B) Change of circumstances - The court reiterated that a material change in circumstances is necessary for reconsideration of bail applications, and the absence of such change leads to dismissal. (Paras 13-15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 26.06.2022 for possession of cannabis while riding a motorcycle. He claimed to be falsely implicated and provided call detail records to support his innocence.

Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial change in circumstances to warrant bail and noted that the trial was progressing normally.

Issues: The main issues included whether there was a change in circumstances since the previous bail applications were dismissed and the validity of the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a material change in circumstances precludes the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in successive applications.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 108 of 2022, dated 26.06.2022, registered with the Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). As per the prosecution, the petitioner and the co-accused were riding a bike. The petitioner had two bags with him, fromwhich 1.114 kgs of cannabis was recovered. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.06.2022. He was falsely implicated. He had filed two bail petitions before this Court, which were dismissed on 13.12.2023 and 24.07.2024. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The State has filed a status report asserting that the police party was checking the vehicles on 26.06.2022. One motorcycle came from Joginder Nagar's side. The petitioner was driving the motorcycle. He had two bags. The pillion rider had one backpack. The police searched the bags, which were being carried by the petitioner and found 1 kg 114 grams of Charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner and co-accused. As per the report of the analysis, the quantity of resin was found to be 31.66 % w/w. The prosecution has cited 17 witnesses, out of whom statements of 13 witnesses have been recorded. The matter was listed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 07.11.2024.

3. I have heard Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The call detail record of the petitioner annexed to the present petition does not show his presence at the place of the incident. Independent witness was not associated by the prosecution. The prosecution case is inherently suspect; therefore, 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 was found in possession of a commercial quantity of charas and rigours of Section 37 of ND&PS Act apply to his case. He has failed to satisfy the twin conditions laid down under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act.

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 filed the bail petition Cr.MPM No. 1813 of 2023, which was dismissed on 13.12.2023 and Cr.MPM No. 1442 of 2024, which was dismissed on 24.07.2024. 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, 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