Successive regular bail petition in a POCSO gang-rape case where the petitioner's DNA matched samples on the victim's clothing and blanket. The court held there was no material change in circumstances, no trial delay attributable to prosecution, and no parity with the co-accused, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. : 2841 of 2025 Reserved on : 02.03.2026 Date of Decision : 10.3.2026.
Rohit …. Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. …. Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail in FIR No. 22 of 2024, dated 07.02.2024, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
3
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
(victim) returned on 06.02.2024 at 8:00 A.M. She revealed on enquiry that when she was returning to her home, petitioner Rohit had asked her to board the vehicle. He told her that he would drop her off at her home, but he took her to some other place. One person accompanied the petitioner, and both of them raped her. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The police seized the vehicle identified by the victim, and recovered one blanket and a pillow. The police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner’s clothes were seized by the police. As per the date of birth certificate, the victim was born on 12.09.2010. She was aged 13 years, 4 months and 26 days on the date of the incident. The mobile phones of the petitioner and the co-accused were seized. The clothes were preserved by the Medical Officer, and these were sent to SFSL, Junga. As per the report of the analysis, human semen was detected on the underwear of the victim, the undergarments of petitioner Rohit and co-accused Rajesh Kumar, T-shirt of co-accused Rajesh Kumar, the blanket recovered from the vehicle and the lower of the victim. The challan has been presented before the Court. The report of analysis was received from FSL, Junga, which shows that the DNA profile obtained
4
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
from the underwear of the victim matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitioner. Similarly, the DNA profile obtained from the lower of the victim matched with the DNA profile obtained from the blood of the co-accused. The DNA profile obtained from the blanket recovered from the vehicle matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitioner. The supplementary charge sheet was filed before the Court. Twenty witnesses out of twenty-eight witnesses have been examined. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 19.12.2025. Hence, the status report.
5
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
reasonable time. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
6
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 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:
“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.
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:
7
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
(2005) 8 SCC 380 , wherein it was observed:
11. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit
v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458 , wherein it was
observed:
“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.”
8
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551, that a successive bail 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:
“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 circumstances. A material change in circumstances settled by law is a change in the fact situation or law that 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 a 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
9
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
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 file a subsequent bail application.”
10
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584 , that a person cannot be released on bail after applying the principle of parity without examining his role. It was observed:
“14 . What flows from the above judgments, which have been referred to, only to the limited extent indicated above, is that the High Courts speak in one voice that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. That, undoubtedly, is the correct position in law. The word ‘parity’ is defined by the C ambridge Dictionary as “ e quality, especially of pay or position.” When weighing an application on parity, it is the ‘ position ’ that is the clincher. The requirement of ‘ p osition ’ is not met only by involvement in the same offence. Position means what the person whose application is being weighed, his position in crime, i.e., his role, etc. There can be different roles played - someone part of a large group, intending to intimidate; an instigator of violence; someone who throws hands at the other side, instigated by such words spoken by another, someone who fired a weapon or swung a machete - parity of these people will be with those who have performed similar acts, and not with someone who was part of the group to intimidate the other by the sheer size of the gathering, with another who attempted to hack away at the opposer's limbs with a weapon.”
11
( 2026:HHC:6379 )
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th March, 2026 (Sushma)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a successive regular bail application is maintainable without a substantial change in circumstances after earlier dismissals?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on parity with the co-accused or on the ground of delay in trial?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha RaoRelied on¶8
(1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605 · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu YadavRelied on¶9
(2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
State of T.N. v. S.A. RajaRelied on¶10
(2005) 8 SCC 380 · Who else cites this
Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶11
(2018) 11 SCC 458 · Who else cites this
Ajay Rajaram Hinge v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶12
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1551 · Who else cites this
Sagar v. State of U.P.Relied on¶15
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2584 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit
State of H.P.
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
