Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Chint Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2882 of 2024.
Decided on : 03-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. J.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for respondent.

A subsequent bail application can be granted only upon a material change in circumstances, as established by judicial precedents.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 354, 376, and 506 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail after being in custody since 04.03.2024 for alleged offences, with a material change in circumstances due to RFSL report indicating no blood or semen detected - The victim's credibility questioned due to inconsistencies in her statements. (Paras 1, 4, 15, 16)

(B) Bail - Principles governing successive applications - A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances, as established in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605 and other precedents. (Paras 6, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for attempted rape and has been in custody since March 2024. The victim's claims were contradicted by the RFSL report, which found no biological evidence. The petitioner had previously filed a bail petition that was dismissed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the RFSL report constituted a material change in circumstances warranting bail.

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the victim's testimony and whether the RFSL report constituted a change in circumstances justifying bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of corroborative evidence from the RFSL report undermined the victim's claims, thus justifying the grant of bail.

Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail on specific conditions.

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. 75 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024 registered with the Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2024. As per the victim, the petitioner tried to rape her when she was going to herhome on 01.03.2024 at around 5.00 PM. She cooked up a false story that the petitioner had also raped her in December 2022 at 9.00 PM. The petitioner had also made a complaint against the victim, and FIR No. 76 of 2024, dated 02.03.2024, was registered against the victim at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The samples were sent for analysis, and no blood or semen were detected in the samples collected by the Medical OfÏcer. The petitioner had filed a bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No. 1094 of 2024, which was dismissed on 31.7.2024. It was observed by the Court that the report of RFSL was awaited. The report of RFSL has been received, which falsifies the prosecution case regarding the rape. This is a material change in the circumstance. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the victim made a complaint against the petitioner, stating that she was going to her home on 01.03.2024 at around 5:00 pm. The petitioner caught her by the neck, pulled her hair and raped her. She ran away. The petitioner pelted stones upon her. She reported the matter to the police. A medical examination of the victim was conducted, and simple injuries were detected on her person. The statement of the victim was recorded by learned ACJM Sunder Nagar, wherein she stated that the petitioner had raped her in December 2022 at about 9:00 pm. The police added Section 376 of IPC. The result from FSL is awaited. The petitioner was also involved in FIR No.73 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021 in Police Station Sunder Nagar, which is pending disposal. The matter is listed for consideration of charge on 13.01.2025.

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

4. Mr J.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He had filed a bail petition earlier, which was dismissed by the Court, but it was held that the report of RFSL was awaited. The report of RFSL has been received, and this is a material change in circumstance. The report falsifies the prosecution's version that the petitioner had raped the victim. The petitioner has been in custody since March 2024, and a charge has not been framed so far. 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 victim had specifically stated about the rape and her statement is to be accepted as correct at this stage. The absence of semen or blood in the report of RFSL is not sufÏcient to discard her testimony. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No. 1094 of 2024, which was dismissed on 31.07.2024. 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. An