Dismissed¶¶63

Saransh Soni v. the State of Hp

Criminal miscellaneous – regular bail

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jun 2025CRMPM/1111/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Saransh Soni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. MP (M) No. 1111 of 2025, decided 06.06.2025 by Rakesh Kainthla, J. (not approved for reporting). Regular bail; successive/second bail application; maintainability requires change in circumstances; filing of charge sheet is not a change in circumstance; FIR No. 222 of 2024, PS Kangra; offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) BNS and Section 25 Arms Act; Section 307 IPC attempt to murder; common intention; earlier petition Cr.MP(M) No. 98 of 2025 dismissed 25.03.2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The present bail petition could be considered only on the basis of a change in circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed earlier by the Court. ¶¶49

Saransh Soni Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrested in FIR No. 222 of 2024, is entitled to regular bail. +4 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be released on bail; the petition fails and is dismissed.

¶¶63

Ratio / Principle

The present bail petition could be considered only on the basis of a change in circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed earlier by the Court.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

The filing of a charge sheet does not amount to a change in circumstances; the petitioner cannot claim bail on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed.ratio¶¶50
Pendency of the investigation was not the sole criterion for declining bail; bail was declined because the allegations were heinous, so the mere fact that the charge sheet has been filed will not assist the petitioner.ratio¶¶57
The Court's earlier finding stands: the petitioner carried the co-accused Tannu, armed with a sword, to the spot, shared a common intention, and his involvement is established prima facie; the submission that no prima facie case of attempt to murder is made out cannot be accepted in the present proceedings.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous — regular bail — second petition after dismissal of earlier bail petition (Cr.MP(M) No. 98 of 2025, dismissed 25.03.2025). A successive bail petition is entertainable only on a change in circumstances, and the Court does not review its own earlier order (relying on State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao; State of M.P. v. Kajad; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar; State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja; Prasad Shrikant Purohit; Ajay Rajaram Hinge). Filing of the charge sheet is not a change in circumstances (Virupakshappa Gouda); pendency of the investigation was not the sole ground of refusal, the allegations being heinous. The earlier finding that the petitioner carried the sword-armed co-accused to the spot and shared a common intention, establishing prima facie involvement, was left undisturbed; the plea of no prima facie case under Section 307 IPC was rejected. Petition dismissed; observations confined to the disposal of the petition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 1111 of 2025 Reserved on : 29.05.2025 Date of Decision: 6^th June, 2025.

¶4

Saransh Soni ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶7

Coram
*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthl*	a,*Jud*	*ge.*
*Whether approved for reporting?*¹	No
For the Petitioner :	Mr. N with Advo	.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate Mr. Divya Raj Singh, cate.
For the Respondent/State. :	Mr. Addit with Polic	Lokender Kutlehria, ional Advocate General ASI Narinder Kumar, IO e Station Kangra.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 222 of 2024, dated 18.12.2024, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 109, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Kangra,

¶10

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

¶11

2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶12

District Kangra, H.P. As per the prosecution, the informant, Rohit, was going to his home on 18.12.2024. He met his friends Mohit and Aman. Tanu, Manu, Nanu, and Goldy residents of Gupt Ganga, who parked their motorcycle near the Court complex. Tanu and Manu had swords, Nanu had Tessi, and Goldy had a pipe. All of them attacked the informant’s brother. The informant intervened, and all the accused ran away from the spot. The petitioner has no role in the present incident. The informant has not alleged anything against the petitioner; rather, he named only four persons who had inflicted injuries upon his brother. As per the prosecution, the petitioner had taken one of the accused to the Tehsil Chowk. The petitioner had returned before the commencement of the incident. The Medical Officer noticed incised wounds and abrasions on the non-vital parts of the body. No prima facie case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is made out. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 98 of 2025, which was dismissed on 25.03.2025. The charge sheet has been filed in the Court; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶13

¶14

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶15

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received an information on 18.12.2024 that a fight had taken place in Kangra Bazaar and the injured were taken to the Civil Hospital. The police went to verify the correctness of the information. The informant, Rohit, made a statement to the police that he was going to his home on 18.12.2024. He met his friends Rohit and Aman. He was talking to them when Tanu, his brother Manu, Nanu and Goldy reached the spot on two motorcycles. Tanu and Manu were armed with swords. Nanu had a ‘tessi’ and a baseball bat. Goldy had an iron pipe, which had a gear-like contraption welded on it. All of them attacked Atul. The informant tried to save him. Mannu attacked the informant with the sword. Tanu inflicted a blow on the informant’s hand. They also gave beatings to Atul. The police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. Police seized the various articles during the investigation. The petitioner is a friend of Tanu. Tanu had called him to Sabji Mandi on 18.12.2024. The petitioner reached the spot on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP40-D-6558. Tanu went to the place of the incident on the petitioner’s motorcycle. The petitioner had left the spot before the incident. The police have filed the charge sheet

¶16

4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶17

before the Court, and the matter is now listed on 17.06.2025 for recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses; hence, the status report.

¶18

I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

¶19

Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He was not named in the FIR. The nature of the injuries sustained by the informant's brother is not grievous, and a prima facie case for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioner. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶22

had earlier approached this Court and his bail petition was dismissed by the Court. The second bail petition only lies if there is a change in the circumstances. In the present case, the circumstances have not changed, and the present petition is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶23

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶24

It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 98 of 2025, which was dismissed on 25.03.2025. 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, the subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed:

¶25

“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. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence. 'Between the two orders, there was a gap of only two days, and it is nobody's case that during these two days, drastic changes had taken place

¶26

¶27

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶28

necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed, reversing all earlier orders, including the one rendered by Puranik, J., only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact situation. In such cases, it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him.

¶29

Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein it was observed: -

¶30

It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5-6-2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking a review of the earlier judgment, which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.

¶31

Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

¶32

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528, that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to consider the rejection of the earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was held:

¶33

“11. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected, there is a further onus on the court to

¶34

¶35

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶36

consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration, if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent bail application should be granted.”

¶37

A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja,

¶38

(2005) 8 SCC 380 , wherein it was observed:

¶39

When a learned Single Judge of the same court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons, and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.”

¶40

This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit

¶41

v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458 , wherein it was observed:

¶42

“30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for the grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds, which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.”

¶43

It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail

¶44

8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶45

application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstances, which means a change in the facts or the law. It was observed:

¶46

“7. It needs to be noted that the right to file successive bail applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for filing subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstance. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law which requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on the merits, if available at the place of sitting. There needs to be clarity between the power of a judge to consider the application and a person's right based on a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstance creates in a person accused of an offence the right to file a fresh bail application. But the power to decide such subsequent application operates in a completely different sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognized principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court and the confidence of the other side being put in issue and there would be wastage of Court's time and that judicial discipline requires that such matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available, for orders. The satisfaction of material change in circumstances needs to be adjudicated by the same Judge who had earlier decided the application. Therefore, the same Judge needs to adjudicate whether there is a change in

¶47

9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶48

circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to file a subsequent bail application.”

¶49

Therefore, the present bail petitions can only be

¶50

considered on the basis of the change in the circumstances, and it is not permissible to review the order passed by the Court.

¶51

It was submitted that a charge sheet has been filed, and this is a change in circumstance. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406: (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 542: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 295 that the filing of a charge sheet does not amount to a change in circumstances. It was observed:

¶52

“12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge sheet is filed, it amounts to a change of circumstance. Needless to say, the filing of the charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge sheet establishes that after due investigation, the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge sheet for the trial of the accused persons.”

¶53

Thus, the petitioner cannot claim bail on the ground

¶54

that the charge sheet has been filed.

¶55

It was submitted that the Court had observed that the investigation was continuing and the petitioner could influence

¶56

¶57

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶58

the investigation. Now the charge sheet has been filed, and this apprehension is removed. This submission will not help the petitioner. Pendency of the investigation was not the sole criterion to decline the bail. The bail was declined because the allegations against the petitioner were heinous and did not justify the release of the petitioner on bail. The pendency of the investigation was an additional circumstance not to grant the bail, therefore, the mere fact that the charge sheet has been filed will not assist the petitioner.

¶59

Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, tried to establish that no prima facie case of attempt to murder is made out against the petitioner; however, this Court has already held, while deciding the earlier bail petition, that the petitioner had carried Tannu, the co-accused, to the spot. Tannu was armed with a sword, and the petitioner would have known that the sword would be used in the incident, therefore, he shared a common intention, and his involvement is established, prima facie, on record. This Court does not sit in appeal over the order passed by it while deciding the subsequent bail petition, therefore, it is permissible for this Court to record a finding to the contrary and the submission that the petitioner is not involved in the

¶60

11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:17988 )

¶61

commission of attempt to commit murder cannot be accepted in the present proceedings.

¶62