Jagpal Singh Vs State of Hp

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 138 of 2025, dated 15.8.2025, registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

¶10

It has been asserted that the petitioner and coaccused Pradeep Kumar and Gurjit Singh were arrested by the

¶11

police on 15.8.2025 for the commission of an offence punishable

¶12

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

¶13

2

¶14

2026:HHC:14422

¶15

under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner is in judicial custody. The petitioner is a young person aged 27 years belonging to a respectable family. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The charges have been framed, and the matter was listed for the fixation of evidence on 20.4.2025. The police have cited 28 witnesses to prove their case. It would take some time to record the statements of witnesses, and the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2707 of 2025 and was dismissed on 18.12.2025. FIR No. 90 of 2024, FIR No. 344 of 2022, and FIR No. 14 of 2025 are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶16

The petition is opposed by filing separate status reports asserting that the police were on patrolling duty on 15.08.2025. They received secret information at 12:00 p.m. that three persons were selling heroin in the building owned by Babu Ram. A huge quantity of heroin could be recovered by their

¶17

3

¶18

2026:HHC:14422

¶19

search. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to the supervisory ofÏcer. The police associated Diwakar Dev Sharma & Mehar Singh Negi and went towards the building. Pradeep Singh, Jagpal Singh (the present petitioner) and Gurjeet Singh were found present in the room. The police searched the room and recovered one pistol and eleven live cartridges. The occupants could not produce a license to possess the pistol. The police seized the pistol and arrested the occupants. The petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The police filed the charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 14.10.2025 and a supplementary charge sheet on 4.3.2026. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 20.4.2026. Hence, the status report.

¶20

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

¶21

Mr. Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the police have filed the charge sheet before the Court, and the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. The conclusion of the trial would take considerable

¶22

4

¶23

2026:HHC:14422

¶24

time, and the petitioner’s continued detention is not justified.

¶25

The petitioner is a young person and would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. 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.

¶26

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is likely to commit a similar crime in case of his release on bail. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by the Court. The subsequent bail petition only lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has not shown any change in the circumstances and is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2707 of 2025

¶29

5

¶30

2026:HHC:14422

¶31

and was dismissed on 18.10.2025. It was held in State of Maharashtra. Captain 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:

¶32

“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.

¶33

Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

¶34

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

¶35

6

¶36

2026:HHC:14422

¶37

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

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

¶40

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

¶41

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.”

¶42

11. This position was reiterated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit

¶43

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

¶44

“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

¶45

7

¶46

2026:HHC:14422

¶47

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 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:

¶49

“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

¶50

8

¶51

2026:HHC:14422

¶52

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 file a subsequent bail application.”

¶53

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

¶54

It was submitted that the police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, which amounts to a change in the circumstances. 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:

¶55

“12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the fact 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.”

¶56

Thus, the petitioner cannot claim bail on the ground

¶57

that the charge sheet has been filed.

¶58

9

¶59

2026:HHC:14422

¶60

The police have filed the charge sheet for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, which deals with the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession, possession for sale, transfer, etc., of arms in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act. The status report does not mention that the firearm was possessed for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, etc. The case is that the firearm was found in possession of the petitioner without any license, which is a contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act and is prima facie punishable under Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act and is punishable with an imprisonment of not less than two years, which may extend to a fine. The police arrested the petitioner on 15.8.2025, and the petitioner has spent a considerable time in custody. Considering the punishment provided by the legislature, further detention of the petitioner is not justified.

¶61

It was submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is not entitled to bail on this consideration. This submission will not help the State. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024:INSC:994 that the criminal antecedents

¶62

10

¶63

2026:HHC:14422

¶64

may not be a reason to deny bail to the accused in case of long

¶65

incarceration. It was observed:

¶66

“10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.”

¶67

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed,

¶68

and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶69

While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: -

¶70

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

¶71

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶72

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

¶73

11

¶74

2026:HHC:14422

¶75

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

¶76

(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.

¶77

It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of

¶78

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

¶79

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

¶80

The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

¶81

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶82

5th May, 2026 (Chander)

Jagpal Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagpal Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tulsi Ram Vs Meena Kumari

Ncb Sub Zone Mandi Vs Sandeep Singh and Others

Inderjeet Singh alias Indu Vs State of Hp

Shubham Bali Vs State of Hp

Manjeet Singh Nadda Vs State of Hp

Darshna Devi Vs Raghubir Singh