Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1325

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Gurvinder @ Vinder - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 1918 of 2025
Decided On : 17-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr K.S. Gill, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Prashant Sent, Deputy Advocate General

Successive bail applications after prior rejections require material change in circumstances; absence thereof, along with belated pleas like illegal arrest, mandates dismissal to preserve judicial discipline.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Successive applications - Earlier bail petitions dismissed on multiple occasions; subsequent application entertainable only upon material change in circumstances having direct impact on prior decisions - Court must consider grounds of prior rejections and record specific reasons for differing view if granting bail - No such change demonstrated; re-agitation of merits impermissible. (Paras 8-13)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Grounds of arrest not communicated - Plea raised for first time after multiple bail rejections not sustainable; cannot be invoked to review or nullify prior orders under doctrine of merger. (Paras 14-17)

(C) Speedy trial - Prosecution examined 8 witnesses within 7 months of charge framing indicates no undue delay. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 307, 452, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. Prosecution alleged petitioner and associates visited informant's house, fired shots at informant and sister due to grudge over tenant dispute; no injuries but bullet residuals on pillar. Accused absconded, apprehended, disclosed and recovered weapons and motorcycle under Section 27 Evidence Act. Multiple prior bail petitions dismissed. Challan filed; trial commenced with witnesses examined.

Findings of Court:
No material change in circumstances from prior bail rejections; illegal arrest plea belated and not entertainable; no trial delay warranting bail.

Issues: Maintainability of successive bail petition absent change in circumstances; violation of arrest grounds communication; infringement of speedy trial right.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive bail applications demand substantial change in facts or law warranting reconsideration; prior connections to crime, potential for repetition, and criminal history upheld; judicial propriety precludes review of earlier merits.

Result: Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. shooting incident due to prior grudge with tenant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties argue on bail and prior rejections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. successive bail requires material change in circumstances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. cannot revisit illegal arrest or prior orders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. no speedy trial violation; witnesses examined promptly. (Para 18)
6. bail petition dismissed without prejudice to merits. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 46/2024, dated 10.04.2024, registered at Police Station Puruwala, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 307, 452, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the petitioner Gurvinder @ Vinder, Inderjeet Singh @ Inder, Mukesh and Abdul Khalik and two other persons visited the informant’s house on 10.04.2024 at about 10:30 a.m. Gurvinder @ Vinder and Inderjeet Singh shot at the informant, but he escaped. The other persons were armed with iron rods and pistols. Gurvinder @ Vinder also shot at Shweta Thakur, the informant’s sister. The assailants ran away from the spot. Gurvinder @ Vinder used to visit Kiran, the informant’s tenant. He had argued with Kiran on 09.04.2024, and the informant asked her to vacate the room. Gurvinder @ Vinder shot the informant because of this grudge. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The bullet marks were found on the pillar. The petitioner is lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan. He has no connection with the commission of the crime, and he was falsely implicated. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ponta Sahib, has released two accused on bail. Nobody received the injury. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner, and the arrest of the petitioner is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had earlier filed bail petitions, which were registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1197 or 2024, Cr.MP(M) No. 1831 of 2024 and Cr.MP(M) No. 2969 of 2024, which were dismissed on 21.06.2024, 18.09.2024 and 27.12.2024, respectively. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant/victim made a complaint to the police stating that on 10.04.2014, he was present at his home. Petitioner, Gurvinder @ Vinder, Inderjeet @ Inder and two other persons came to his house. Gurvinder @ Vinder and Inderjeet @ Inder shot at the informant and his sister to kill them. The accused ran away from the spot after the shooting. The incident occurred because the petitioner, Gurvinder @ Vinder, knew the girl who was a tenant in the informant’s house. The petitioner had quarrelled with her on 09.04.2023. The informant asked the tenant to vacate her room, after which the petitioner collected various persons and shot at the informant and his sister. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police did not find any empty cartridges on the spot, but found residuals of the bullet in the last pillar. The informant and his sister would have suffered a fatal injury from the gunshots fired at them. The police searched for the petitioner and other persons, who had absconded, and were apprehended on 13.04.2024. They were interrogated, and they made separate statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that they could get the Katta recovered. They led the police and got recovered separate pistols (Kattas). The police prepared their sketches and seized them. The petitioner, Gurvider also got recovered one motorcycle used by him during the incident. Nine FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, Gurvinder, and 3 FIRs have been registered against the Inderjeet Singh @ Inder. The petitioner is the leade