The court affirmed that subsequent bail applications require a material change in circumstances post a previous rejection, emphasizing judicial discipline in bail hearings.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 57 of 2024, dated 07.10.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 49 and 64 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Khudiyan, District Kangra, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was falsely implicated. He was arrested on 08.10.2024. The charge-sheet was filed on 20.02.2025. The charges were framed on 28.05.2025. The prosecution cited 35 witnesses in the original charge-sheet and 13 witnesses in the supplementary charge-sheet. The victim was examined, and the matter was listed on 19.12.2025 before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 446 of 2025. The petitioner has remained behind bars for one year and two months. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner is the sole earner of the family. He is a permanent resident of the district Kangra, and there is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) is the wife of the petitioner. She had gone to the rented room of the petitioner in village Theel on 05.10.2024. Suresh Chand, a friend of her husband, was also residing in the same room. The petitioner told the victim that Suresh ties the sacred thread. Suresh told the petitioner that the victim would have to remove her clothes. The petitioner asked the victim to remove her clothes. She refused, but the petitioner forcibly removed her clothes. The petitioner had physical relations with the victim, and thereafter, he told his friend to maintain physical relations with the victim. She refused, but Suresh raped her. She narrated the incident to her mother. She was taken to her matrimonial home. She narrated the incident to her sister-in-law, who accompanied her to the police station. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The statement of the victim was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehra. The recoveries were effected at the instance of the petitioner and Suresh Chand. As per the report of analysis, the DNA of Suresh Kumar matched the DNA found in the vaginal swab, and the DNA of Suresh Chand was found on the salwar of the victim and the bed sheet. The challan was filed before the Court, and the matter is now listed before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. on 21.04.2026.

4. I have heard M/s Panku Chaudhary and Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State

5. Mr Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The statements of the victim and her father have been recorded. The prosecution has cited 48 witnesses. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the district Kangra, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earli