2026:HHC:39643 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1669 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.09.2026 Decided on: 17.09.2026 Gopal …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ragini Dogra, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent/State : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 100 of 2023 dated 19.08.2023 registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was alone in her house on 16.08.2023. The petitioner came 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39643

to her house at about 11:30 p.m. and raped her. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner has remained in custody since 19.08.2023. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1986 of 2025 and was dismissed on 24.09.2025. The petitioner's DNA was not found in the semen stain collected from the blanket on the spot, as per the analysis. The matter was listed on various dates, but the prosecution failed to complete the evidence. The copies of the order sheets show that the petitioner has no role in delaying the trial. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom statements of 8 witnesses have been recorded. This violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was alone in her house on 16.08.2023. The petitioner came to her house at about 11:30 p.m. and raped her. She reported the matter to the police. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The victim was medically examined. The Medical Officer reported that the victim was 3 2026:HHC:39643

exposed to sexual intercourse within 3 to 4 days of the examination. The police arrested the petitioner and sent him for medical examination. As per the medical report, the petitioner was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Human semen was detected on the salwar of the victim and the blanket. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 16.10.2023. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.08.2023. He would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Ms Ragini Dogra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Ms Ragini Dogra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The report of the DNA analysis does not show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than 3 years, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence. The petitioner had cooperated with the trial, but the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses on the dates fixed. The petitioner's right 4 2026:HHC:39643 to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. She relied upon the judgments in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2026:HHC:26936 and Mohammad Bilal vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:3025 in support of her submission.

6. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court which was dismissed by the Court. The subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has failed to show any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. Hence, 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. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1986 of 2025, and was dismissed on 24.09.2025. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. It was held in the State of Maharashtra. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 5 2026:HHC:39643 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. 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 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 6 2026:HHC:39643 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 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 2026:HHC:39643

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 factual situation or law that requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstances has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail applications need 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 circumstances 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 recognised 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 the 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 circumstances 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 impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. It has been asserted in the petition that the report of DNA analysis states that the DNA collected from the material 8 2026:HHC:39643 objects did not match the petitioner’s DNA. This report was not brought to the notice of the Court while deciding the earlier bail petition, and the Court proceeded on the basis that human semen was detected on the victim's salwar. The report of the DNA analysis mentions that partial Y-STR DNA profiles were identified in semen-stained salwar, shirt, and vaginal slides of the victim, but these were inconclusive for the opinion. A mixed Y-STR DNA profile was identified in semen stain on the blanket. One component of which did not match the Y-STR DNA profile of the petitioner. A partial autosomal STR DNA profile was identified in the blood-stained blanket, which was inconclusive for opinion. Therefore, prima facie, the report of the analysis does not corroborate the victim's version that the petitioner had raped her.

15. The status report mentions that the petitioner was arrested on 19.08.2023. The copies of the order sheets have been filed, which show that the matter was listed for recording the evidence on 20.06.2024, 21.06.2024, 24.03.2025, 25.03.2025, on which dates no witness was examined. The statement of Dr Naresh Kumar could not be recorded because of a technical glitch in the computer on 27th March, and no other witness was present. 9 2026:HHC:39643 No witness was present on 09.07.2025, and statements of two witnesses were recorded on 08.07.2025 and 19.12.2025. Again, no witnesses were present on 20.12.2025 and 18.03.2026. Statements of one witness each were recorded on 19.03.2026, 03.06.2026 and 04.06.2026. It was rightly submitted on the petitioner’s behalf that the prosecution had failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of more than 3 years from the date of the petitioner's arrest, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. It was held by this Court in Rajesh Kumar (supra) and Mohammad Bilal (supra) that where the prosecution is unable to complete the evidence, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 16. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. This submission is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be removed by imposing the conditions in the present case.

17. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Kullu, which was not stated to be incorrect, which means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 10 2026:HHC:39643 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (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. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (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.

19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 11 2026:HHC:39643 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Hamirpur, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th September, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER DigitallyCHANDERsignedSHEKHARby SHEKHAR Date:16:52:392026.09.17+0530

2026:HHC:39643 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1669 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.09.2026 Decided on: 17.09.2026 Gopal …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ragini Dogra, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent/State : Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 100 of 2023 dated 19.08.2023 registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim was alone in her house on 16.08.2023. The petitioner came 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39643

to her house at about 11:30 p.m. and raped her. The allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner has remained in custody since 19.08.2023. The police have completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1986 of 2025 and was dismissed on 24.09.2025. The petitioner's DNA was not found in the semen stain collected from the blanket on the spot, as per the analysis. The matter was listed on various dates, but the prosecution failed to complete the evidence. The copies of the order sheets show that the petitioner has no role in delaying the trial. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom statements of 8 witnesses have been recorded. This violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim was alone in her house on 16.08.2023. The petitioner came to her house at about 11:30 p.m. and raped her. She reported the matter to the police. The police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the matter. The victim was medically examined. The Medical Officer reported that the victim was 3 2026:HHC:39643

exposed to sexual intercourse within 3 to 4 days of the examination. The police arrested the petitioner and sent him for medical examination. As per the medical report, the petitioner was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Human semen was detected on the salwar of the victim and the blanket. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court on 16.10.2023. The petitioner has been in custody since 19.08.2023. He would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Ms Ragini Dogra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 5. Ms Ragini Dogra, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The report of the DNA analysis does not show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than 3 years, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence. The petitioner had cooperated with the trial, but the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses on the dates fixed. The petitioner's right 4 2026:HHC:39643 to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. She relied upon the judgments in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2026:HHC:26936 and Mohammad Bilal vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:3025 in support of her submission.

6. Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition before this Court which was dismissed by the Court. The subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. The petitioner has failed to show any change in the circumstances, and he is not entitled to bail. Hence, 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. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1986 of 2025, and was dismissed on 24.09.2025. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the subsequent bail petition lies only when there is a change in the circumstances. It was held in the State of Maharashtra. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 5 2026:HHC:39643 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. 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 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 6 2026:HHC:39643 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 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 2026:HHC:39643

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 factual situation or law that requires the earlier view to be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. However, a change in circumstances has no bearing on the salutary principle of judicial propriety that successive bail applications need 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 circumstances 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 recognised 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 the 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 circumstances 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 impermissible to review the order passed by the Court. 14. It has been asserted in the petition that the report of DNA analysis states that the DNA collected from the material 8 2026:HHC:39643 objects did not match the petitioner’s DNA. This report was not brought to the notice of the Court while deciding the earlier bail petition, and the Court proceeded on the basis that human semen was detected on the victim's salwar. The report of the DNA analysis mentions that partial Y-STR DNA profiles were identified in semen-stained salwar, shirt, and vaginal slides of the victim, but these were inconclusive for the opinion. A mixed Y-STR DNA profile was identified in semen stain on the blanket. One component of which did not match the Y-STR DNA profile of the petitioner. A partial autosomal STR DNA profile was identified in the blood-stained blanket, which was inconclusive for opinion. Therefore, prima facie, the report of the analysis does not corroborate the victim's version that the petitioner had raped her.

15. The status report mentions that the petitioner was arrested on 19.08.2023. The copies of the order sheets have been filed, which show that the matter was listed for recording the evidence on 20.06.2024, 21.06.2024, 24.03.2025, 25.03.2025, on which dates no witness was examined. The statement of Dr Naresh Kumar could not be recorded because of a technical glitch in the computer on 27th March, and no other witness was present. 9 2026:HHC:39643 No witness was present on 09.07.2025, and statements of two witnesses were recorded on 08.07.2025 and 19.12.2025. Again, no witnesses were present on 20.12.2025 and 18.03.2026. Statements of one witness each were recorded on 19.03.2026, 03.06.2026 and 04.06.2026. It was rightly submitted on the petitioner’s behalf that the prosecution had failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of more than 3 years from the date of the petitioner's arrest, which violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. It was held by this Court in Rajesh Kumar (supra) and Mohammad Bilal (supra) that where the prosecution is unable to complete the evidence, the petitioner cannot be detained in custody. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 16. It was submitted that the petitioner would intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. This submission is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner as it can be removed by imposing the conditions in the present case.

17. The petitioner asserted that he is a permanent resident of District Kullu, which was not stated to be incorrect, which means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 10 2026:HHC:39643 18. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (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. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (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.

19. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have a right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 11 2026:HHC:39643 20. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, District Jail Hamirpur, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 21. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th September, 2026 (Nikita) CHANDER DigitallyCHANDERsignedSHEKHARby SHEKHAR Date:16:52:392026.09.17+0530