Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Oct 2025CRMPM/2287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second regular bail plea in an NDPS case alleging commercial-quantity recovery from a co-accused who implicated the petitioner. The court held the earlier rejection required changed circumstances but accepted that trial delay and parity with co-accused Anuj Sharma, bailed by the Supreme Court, justified release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on regular bail subject to terms and conditions fixed by the Trial Court.

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

2025:HHC:34091

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 2287 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.9.2025 Date of Decision: 8.10.2025.

¶4

Amit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Petitioner	: Ms Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State	: Mr Lokender Kutlehria,
	Additional Advocate General,
	assisted by ASI Nishant
	Kumar, PS Baddi, District
	Solan, HP.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 210 of 2023, dated 5.8.2023, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

2025:HHC:34091

¶13

It has been asserted that the police searched the house of the co-accused Mohinder based on secret information and recovered 11400 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride and Alprazolam. He disclosed during the interrogation that the petitioner had supplied the tablets to him on 30.7.2019. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated based on the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. The challan was filed on 16.1.2024, and no prosecution witness has been examined so far. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to the co-accused on 10.9.2025 because of the delay in the progress of the trial. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity; hence, the present petition.

¶14

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 5.8.2023. They received secret information at 4.40 PM that Mohinder was selling narcotic drugs, and in case of a search, a huge quantity of drugs could be recovered. The information was reduced to writing and was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baddi. The Drugs Inspector Promila, independent witnesses Kuldeep, Rahul and Sita Ram were associated, and the police searched the house in their presence. Mohinder was found in

¶15

¶16

2025:HHC:34091

¶17

Room No. 22. The police recovered 14500 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 5133 grams, 11400 tablets of Alprazolam tablets weighing 1413.6 grams, and 600 tablets of Alprazolam weighing 61.2 grams from the room. The police seized the tablets and arrested Mohinder Singh, who revealed during the inquiry that the petitioner, Amit Kumar, had supplied the tablets to him. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered his mobile phone. His WhatsApp revealed that the petitioner and Mohinder had talked to each other regarding the supply of the tablets. The petitioner revealed that he had purchased the medicines from Anuj Sharma. The police arrested Anuj Sharma. The police checked their account and found that ₹10,000/- and ₹47,500/- were transferred by the petitioner to Anuj Sharma. This was also cross-checked from the account of Anuj Sharma. The result of the analysis confirmed the tablets to be Tramadol Hydrochloride and Alprazolam. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court on 28.11.2023. The prosecution has cited 35 witnesses. The matter is listed for recording the statements of six witnesses on 24.11.2025, 28.11.2025 and 29.11.2025. Hence, the status report.

¶18

¶19

2025:HHC:34091

¶20

I have heard Ms Meera Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶21

Ms Meera Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated based upon the statement made by the co-accused, which is inadmissible. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the co-accused was released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶22

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the sale of a commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride and Alprazolam. These are highly addictive drugs, and their consumption is adversely affecting society. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. The subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. There is no change in the

¶23

¶24

2025:HHC:34091

¶25

circumstances in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1952 of 2024 and was dismissed on 6.12.2024. It was held in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2

¶28

SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed:

¶29

“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 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

¶30

¶31

2025:HHC:34091

¶32

successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him.

¶33

Similar is the judgment delivered in State of M.P. v.

¶34

Kajad , (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein it was observed: -

¶35

8. 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 Mannv. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa[(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.

¶36

Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

¶37

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:

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

2025:HHC:34091

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

9. 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 do not apply to bail applications, but the repeated filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.

¶44

This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant

¶45

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

¶46

observed:

¶47

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.

¶48

It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of

¶49

Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail

¶50

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:

2025:HHC:34091

7 . It needs to be noted that the right to fle successive bail i applications accrues to the applicant only on the existence of a material change in circumstances. The sine qua non for f i ling subsequent bail applications is a material change in circumstances. 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 f i nding 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 of f ence the right to fle a fresh bail application. But the i power to decide such a subsequent application operates in a completely dif f erent sphere, unconnected with the facts of a case. Such power is based on the well-settled and judicially recognised principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by dif f erent Judges, there would be conf l icting 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 conf i dence 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 circumstance as claimed by the applicant, which entitles him to f i le a subsequent bail application.”

¶55

¶56

2025:HHC:34091

¶57

Therefore, the present bail petition can only be considered based on the change in the circumstances, and it is impermissible to review the order passed by the Court.

¶58

It has been submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. The co-accused, Anuj Sharma, was also released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 9838 of 2025, decided on 10.9.2025, because of the delay in the progress of the trial. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. This submission has to be accepted as correct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed in Anuj Sharma (supra) that he had suffered over two years of incarceration, and he was entitled to bail. The status report shows that the petitioner, Amit Kumar, was arrested on 8.8.2023, and Anuj Sharma was arrested on 10.8.2023. Therefore, both the petitioner and co-accused Anuj Kumar were arrested almost at the same time. If co-accused Anuj Sharma is entitled to bail on the ground of delay in the progress of the trial, the petitioner will also be entitled to bail on this consideration as well.

¶59

¶60

2025:HHC:34091

¶61

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the learned Trial Court.

¶62

The petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶63

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.

¶64

A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the ofÏcial website of this Court.

¶65

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶66

8^th October, 2025 (Chander) Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER SHEKHAR SHEKHAR Date: 2025.10.0816:53:20 +0530

Amit Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soni Kumar Vs State of Hp

Rukhsana Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Gulshan Singh and Others

Vanshika Vs State of Hp

Shiv Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Samarth Hatoj Vs State of Hp