High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Rakesh Kainthla, J.; decision dated 5.5.2026) dismissed a successive regular-bail petition (Cr. MP(M) No. 5 of 2026) by Gaurav, accused in FIR No.12 of 2025 (Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmour) under Section 65(1) and 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on the allegation that he sheltered co-accused Manish Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar, who raped the minor victim at the petitioner's house, as corroborated by DNA recovered therefrom. The petitioner's earlier bail petition, Cr.MP(M) No.1212 of 2025, had been dismissed on 28.6.2025. Relying on Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Ajay Rajaram Hinge and State of M.P. v. Kajad, the Court held that a successive bail petition is entertainable only on a (substantial/material) change in circumstances and cannot operate as a review of the earlier order; the earlier considerations remained unchanged. Relying further on Dineet (Delhi HC), X v. State of Rajasthan and Suraj Singh (HP), the Court held that a bail court cannot appreciate trial-stage evidence, that hostility of the victim and her father and discrepancies in their statements cannot ground bail, and rejected the delay plea since the trial was progressing normally (charge sheet filed; six of 29 witnesses examined; evidence dates fixed). Petition dismissed, with liberty to move afresh if the trial is not concluded expeditiously; observations confined to this disposal.
