Kamal Nath alias Kamlu v. State of H.P

been prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and has given up three witnesses. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 16.07.2025 and 17.07.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have M/s Suram Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5

5. Mr. Suram Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. There is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. As per prosecution, the petitioner pushed the deceased and actual injuries were caused by co-accused Parshant. The material witnesses have turned hostile, and the pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not justified. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 6 Mr. Parshant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed by this Court. The subsequent bail petition lies when there is a change in the circumstances. The mere fact that some of the witnesses have turned hostile is no change in circumstances. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 6

8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1534 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 07.08.2024. 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, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed: two days, drastic changes had “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 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.

9. Similarly, it was held in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 that where an earlier bail application has been rejected, the Court has to 7 consider the rejection of the earlier bail application and then consider why the subsequent bail application should be allowed. It was held: “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.”

10. A similar view was taken in State of T.N. v. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8 SCC 380, wherein it was observed:

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 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.

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 8 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.

12. 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:

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 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 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 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 recognised principle that if successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be Judges, there would be disposed of by different 9 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 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.”

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

14. This Court had already concluded while deciding his earlier petition that the petitioner was involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. This Court cannot review the earlier order passed by it while rejecting the bail. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1520: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1070 that it is impermissible to review the earlier order of bail in the subsequent bail petition, and the Court can only consider the change in circumstances. It was observed at page 676: 10

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 review of the earlier judgment, which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments. Singh Mann v. Harbhajan in Hari

15. Therefore, it is impermissible to record a finding in the present proceedings that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

16. It was submitted that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case, and the petitioner is entitled to bail. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of the trial. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be 11 it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the Accused.

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and is to be examined by the just before the victim prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or the acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only if the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.”

17. Similarly, it was held by this Court in Suraj Singh v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 268 that the Court exercising bail jurisdiction cannot appreciate the contradictions in the evidence. It was observed:

10. Petitioner has placed reliance on the statements of witnesses already recorded by the learned Special Judge, in support of his argument to the effect that, from perusal these statements, reasonable grounds can be entertained for concluding prima facie innocence of the petitioner. The arguments raised on behalf of the 12 petitioner deserve to be rejected for the reason that this Court, while dealing with the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence being recorded during the trial. Undisputedly, only some of the witnesses out of the entire list of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have been examined. In these circumstances, it is not prudent to form any opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the petitioner on the basis of such partial evidence.

18. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner is entitled to bail because some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution's case cannot be accepted.

19. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission cannot be accepted. A perusal of the order sheets shows that the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses and has given up three witnesses. The matter was listed on 16.07.2025 and 17.07.2025.

20. As per the earlier order passed in the earlier bail petition of the petitioner, the matter was listed for consideration of the charge. The examination of fourteen witnesses within one year does not show any delay in the progress of the trial. Further, the copies of the order sheets were not filed on record to substantiate the plea that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of delay at this stage; however, the petitioner is at 13 liberty to approach the Court in case it is found that the trial is not progressing due to the circumstances not attributable to the petitioner. 21 In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 22 The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. 28th July 2025. (ravinder) (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge