Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mohit Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2498 of 2025
Decided On : 25-11-2025

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

Successive bail petitions require material change in circumstances; charge sheet filing insufficient. Criminal antecedents and fleeing investigation justify denial despite procedural claims.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 109, 126(2) and 115(2) r/w 3(5); BNSS - Sections 35 - Bail - Successive bail applications permissible only upon material change in circumstances, which must be substantial and directly impact prior decision; filing charge sheet does not constitute such change as it reinforces prosecution case (Paras 8-16); communication of grounds of arrest applies prospectively (Para 17); defective notice lacking date and time does not entitle to bail if accused flees jurisdiction indicating no intent to join investigation (Paras 26-28); criminal antecedents, particularly prior FIRs, weigh against bail where likelihood of repeating offence or threat to society (Paras 19-25).

(B) Bail principles - Normal rule is bail not jail, except where circumstances suggest repetition of offences, witness intimidation or fleeing justice; antecedents relevant to assess risk, especially for habitual offenders (Paras 20-23).

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, a driver, sought regular bail in case of alleged assault on another driver during dispute over personal articles in a room where accused were consuming liquor. Victim sustained head injury dangerous to life, referred for advanced treatment. Petitioner and co-accused received notice to join investigation but fled, apprehended en route outside jurisdiction. Prior bail petition dismissed; charge sheet filed citing multiple witnesses; petitioner has prior FIRs.

Findings of Court:
No material change in circumstances since prior bail dismissal; defective notice immaterial as petitioner showed no intent to cooperate by fleeing; criminal antecedents indicate risk of repetition.

Issues: Whether filing charge sheet or defective notice constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail; relevance of criminal antecedents and conduct in fleeing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Successive bail applications require demonstration of substantial change in facts or law since prior rejection; mere procedural developments like charge sheet insufficient; courts must weigh antecedents, offence gravity and conduct to prevent abuse of process and ensure societal safety. Result : Bail petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. assault incident and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties contend on bail eligibility (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. successive bail needs circumstances change (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. charge sheet not circumstances change (Para 15 , 16)
5. arrest grounds rule prospective (Para 17 , 18)
6. antecedents justify bail denial (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. conduct indicates investigation evasion (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
8. bail petition dismissed (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 43 of 2025, dated 26.3.2025, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2) and 115(2) read with 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the informant Sanjeev Kumar made a complaint regarding the beating. He was taken to CHC Mashobra from where he was referred to IGMC. The accused met the police on the way to IGMC, and they complained about the beatings given by complainant to them. They were also taken to IGMC for their medical examination. The informant stated that he had visited his brother's room on March 25, 2025 where he found that the accused were consuming liquor in the room. The informant left the personal articles of Rajinder in his room and came out. The informant again went to the room of Rajinder for bringing them back, however, the accused objected. The informant called Rajinder and told him about this fact. The accused gave beatings to the informant. The police registered an FIR. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1113 of 2025 and was dismissed by the Court on 21.6.2025. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.3.2025. The police have filed the charge sheet. They have cited 23 witnesses. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner and informant are working as drivers in the same company. Notice under Section 35 of BNSS was served upon the petitioner, but no details of the time and place were mentioned in the notice. The petitioner’s arrest is illegal. Therefore, 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 informant made a complaint to the police stating that he went to his room on 25.03.2025 at about 6:00 pm to drop off the articles belonging to Rajinder. Sunil and Mohit were consuming liquor in the room. The informant left the articles in the room and came out. However, Rajinder called him and told him to keep the articles in his room. The informant went inside the room; however, Sunil and Mohit did not permit him to pick up the articles. The informant, called Rajinder and told him that he was not being allowed to take away the articles. Sunil and Mohit caught the informant by the neck and gave him beating. He shouted for help. Sanjay came to the spot and rescued him. The informant sustained injuries in the incident. The police registered the FIR. The informant was taken to IGMC, Shimla, from where he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh. A notice was served upon Sunil and Mohit to join the investigation; however, they did not abide by the terms and conditions of the notice and ran away from the spot. They were apprehended near Kalka and were brought to Shoghi, where they were interrogated and arrested on 26.03.2025 at 5:35 pm. The informant/victim remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. He had sustained an injury to the head, which was dangerous to life. The challan was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 26.6.2025. FIR No. 210, dated 5.7.2015, FIR No. 146, dated 3.5.2015 and FIR No. 92/22 dated 19.9.2022 are registered against the petitioner. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lok