Chint Ram Vs State of Hp

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 75 of 2024 dated 01.03.2024 registered with the Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2024. As per the victim, the petitioner tried to rape her when she was going to her

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) home on 01.03.2024 at around 5.00 PM. She cooked up a false story that the petitioner had also raped her in December 2022 at 9.00 PM. The petitioner had also made a complaint against the victim, and FIR No. 76 of 2024, dated 02.03.2024, was registered against the victim at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The samples were sent for analysis, and no blood or semen were detected in the samples collected by the Medical OfÏcer. The petitioner had filed a bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No. 1094 of 2024, which was dismissed on 31.7.2024. It was observed by the Court that the report of RFSL was awaited. The report of RFSL has been received, which falsifies the prosecution case regarding the rape. This is a material change in the circumstance. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶13

The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the victim made a complaint against the petitioner, stating that she was going to her home on 01.03.2024 at around 5:00 pm. The petitioner caught her by the neck, pulled her hair and raped her. She ran away. The petitioner pelted stones upon her. She reported the matter to the police. A medical examination of the victim was conducted, and simple injuries were detected on her person. The statement of the victim was recorded by learned ACJM

¶14

3

¶15

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) Sunder Nagar, wherein she stated that the petitioner had raped her in December 2022 at about 9:00 pm. The police added Section 376 of IPC. The result from FSL is awaited. The petitioner was also involved in FIR No.73 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021 in Police Station Sunder Nagar, which is pending disposal. The matter is listed for consideration of charge on 13.01.2025.

¶16

I have heard Mr. J.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶17

Mr J.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He had filed a bail petition earlier, which was dismissed by the Court, but it was held that the report of RFSL was awaited. The report of RFSL has been received, and this is a material change in circumstance. The report falsifies the prosecution's version that the petitioner had raped the victim. The petitioner has been in custody since March 2024, and a charge has not been framed so far. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶18

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the victim had

¶19

4

¶20

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) specifically stated about the rape and her statement is to be accepted as correct at this stage. The absence of semen or blood in the report of RFSL is not sufÏcient to discard her testimony. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶21

It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No. 1094 of 2024, which was dismissed on 31.07.2024. 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, subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed:

¶22

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

¶23

5

¶24

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 )

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.

¶29

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:

¶30

“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.”

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

6

¶35

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) 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.

¶36

This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v.

¶37

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

¶38

30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for 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.

¶39

It was held in Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of

¶40

Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551 that successive bail application can be filed if there is a material change in the circumstance, which means the change in the facts or the law. It was observed:

¶41

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 fling i 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 fnding i has become obsolete. However, change in circumstance has no bearing on the salutatory principle of judicial propriety that successive bail application needs to be decided by the same Judge on 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 i

¶42

7

¶43

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) application. But, the power to decide such 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 recognized principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by dif f erent Judges, there would be conficting l 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 confdence of the other side being put in issue i 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 fle a subsequent bail application.” i

¶44

Therefore, the present bail petition can only be

¶45

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

¶46

This Court held while deciding the earlier bail petition in para 2 that the result from SFSL was awaited. The result from SFSL has been received, which shows that no blood and semen were detected in the samples collected from the victim and the accused. Since there was no blood or semen, therefore, no DNA analysis was carried out in the laboratory.

¶47

The victim had asserted in the application made by her that the accused caught and raped her. She saved herself, and the accused hit her on her head and the face. This report was made on the date of the incident. The fact that no blood and semen were

¶48

8

¶49

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) detected in the samples collected by the Doctors would prima facie shows that the victim’s version regarding rape is not corroborated.

¶50

The victim also stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had also raped her in the year 2022 . This version was made for the first time in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. after four days of the report. Prima facie , the absence of such allegations in the FIR will make the victim’s version regarding the rape in the year 2022 suspect.

¶51

The petitioner has been in custody since 04.03.2024. The matter was listed for consideration on charge on 30.7.2024 at the time of the decision of the earlier bail application. As per the status report, the matter is listed for consideration on the charge on 13.01.2025, which shows that no progress has taken place in the trial since the decision of the earlier bail petition.

¶52

It was submitted that FIR No. 73 of 2021 was pending against the petitioner. A copy of the compromise effected between the parties before Gram Panchayat has been filed, which shows that the matter was reconciled between the parties. Therefore, as of today, no matter is pending against the petitioner.

¶53

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of

¶54

9

¶55

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 )

¶56

₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶57

the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -

¶58

(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;

¶59

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;

¶60

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;

¶61

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

¶62

(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

¶63

It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any

¶64

of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

¶65

The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent District Jail Mandi and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.

¶66

10

¶67

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:566 ) 21. The observation made herein before shall remain

¶68

confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no

¶69

bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

¶70

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶71

3^rd January, 2025