Subsequent bail applications require material change in circumstances; courts cannot review prior orders or appreciate trial evidence at bail stage.

Anuj Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr Mohit Dogra, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge H The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 4 of 2025 dated 15.01.2025 registered at Police Station Sihunta, District Chamba, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 85 and 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and commands good respect in the locality. He was falsely implicated at the instance of persons having inimical relations with him. The petitioner remained behind bars for about one year. He is the sole bread earner of the family, and his family is suffering hardship in his absence. As per the prosecution, the petitioner’s wife committed suicide. The petitioner’s mother-iun-law made a complaint to the police that the petitioner usoed to harass his wife and suspect her character. He did notC allow her to visit her parental home. He had turned her out of her matrimonial home with bruises on her face, chest and arms. She revealed that the petitioner had given her beatings. The petitioner subsequently took his wife to his home, Hwhere she committed suicide on 15.01.2025 by consuming poison.

The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated. The police have filed the chargesheet, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The co-accused Lal Chand and Veena Devi have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba (learned Trial Court) and the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. The prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses, and this violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. The petitioner would abide by 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 informant made a complaint to the police that Meenakshi (since deceased) was married to the petitioner. The petitioner used to suspect her character and beat her. He turned her out of her matrimonial home after beating her. She had sustaine d multiple injuries on her face, chest and arm. She went to her parental home and narrated the incident to the informant. The informant did not report the matter to any person because she had to settle Meenakshi in her matrimonial home. Subsequently, Meenakshi consumed poison. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. Her viscera were sent to the FSL, and traces of phosphine gas (phosphide) were found in the viscera after the analysis. The Medical Officer reported that the cause of death was phosphine gas (phosphide) poisoning. It was found during the investigation that the petitioner used to beat Meenakshi. The Ward Member of the area also tried to counsel the petitioner, but he continued to beat Meenakshi. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom four witnesses have been examined, and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecutio