Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Govind Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 2686 of 2024
Decided on : 03-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances; otherwise, they cannot be considered.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for murder, asserting innocence and claiming false implication. Previous bail petitions were dismissed due to DNA evidence linking him to the crime. The trial is ongoing with 20 out of 42 witnesses examined. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 14)

(B) Successive bail applications - The court reiterated that subsequent bail applications can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances. Judicial discipline requires that such applications be decided by the same judge who handled earlier petitions. (Paras 7, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for the murder of Shakuntla Devi, with DNA evidence linking him to the crime. The trial is ongoing, and the petitioner claims the trial is delayed. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial change in circumstances to warrant bail, as the trial was progressing normally with a significant number of witnesses already examined. (Paras 14, 17)

Issues: The main issues were whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying a new bail application and the progress of the trial. (Paras 12, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances since previous bail applications were dismissed, and the trial was proceeding at a normal pace. (Paras 14, 17)

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. 136 of 2022, dated 27.06.2022, registered at Police Station Bhuntar for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been asserted that the petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 2057 of 2023, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 on the ground that the DNA of the hair recovered from the socks of the petitioner matched with the DNA of the deceased. He filed one more bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1452 of 2024, which was also dismissed. The prosecution has examined 20 witnesses out of 42 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The completion of the trial is likely to take some time. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that deceased Shakuntla Devi was residing alone after the death of her husband. The informant, Shakuntla Devi’s daughter, received a call on 26.6.2022 at 11.41 p.m. She picked up the phone but could not hear what was being said on the other side. She called back. The call was received by some person who revealed that Aunty was pelting the stones and that she should be counselled. The informant inquired as to what he was doing in the middle of the night. The informant suspected that somebody was quarrelling with her mother. She called Jugdei and asked her to verify the facts. Jugdei went to the spot and found the dead body of Shakuntla. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation.

The police picked up the articles lying on the spot. The accused revealed on inquiry that he had run away with Kaushalya. Shakuntla scolded him. The police checked the call detail record of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was in the vicinity of the area where the dead body was found. He had thrown his mobile phone when he was apprehended. He could not give any satisfactory reason for throwing the mobile phone. The police arrested the petitioner. He got recovered the stone that was used for hitting the deceased. He also stated that he could get one bedsheet, one silver necklace, two silver bangles, and one mobile phone recovered. However, these articles were not recovered as they were washed away in the flowing water. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, was head injury caused by blunt force. 217.15 mg % ethyl alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. As per the report of analysis, the DNA from the hair of the socks of the petitioner matched with the DNA from the blood of the deceased. The police prepared the challan and presented it before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge on 22.07.2023. 20 witnesses have been examined out of 42 witnesses, and the matter is now listed on 03.03.2025 and 04.03.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.

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

4. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is an inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial. Twenty witnesses have been examined out of 42 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The trial is not likely to conclude soon; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Madan versus State of H.P., 2024:HHC:5778 and Athar Parwez versus Union of India, 2024 INSC 995, in support of his submission.

5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed two bail petitions, which were dismissed by this Court. There is no chan