IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.(M) No.85 of 2009. Date of decision : 27.3.2009. Anoop Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General (in both petitions). __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This order shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 84 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No. 85 of 2009 having arisen from FIR No. 153 of 2007 and FIR No. 150 of 2007, Police Station, Baddi, respectively. Anoop Kumar is accused in both the FIRs. According to the petitioner- Anoop Kumar, FIR No. 153 of 2007 was registered on 20.9.2007 under Sections 342, 380, 395, 458, 411 and 120-B I.P.C. and FIR No. 150 of 2007 was registered on 17.9.2007 under Sections 342, 380, 395, 458, 411 and 120-B I.P.C. Anoop Kumar has filed both the petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in the aforesaid FIRs. ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes. 2 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009, the petitioner has stated that he was arrested on 12.11.2007 and since then he is in custody. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family and his father is a Drawing Teacher in Govt. Sr. Secondary School, his mother is also a Primary School Teacher. The family income of the petitioner is more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The investigation in the case is complete. There is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The petitioner earlier filed Cr.M.P.(M) No.207 of 2008 in this Court which was rejected on 31.3.2008. The petitioner filed SLP in the Supreme Court against the order dated 31.3.2008 and SLP was rejected on 11.9.2008. The petitioner is only son of his parents and his father has recently met with an accident and got an attack of paralysis. The business of the petitioner is badly affected due to his custody. The challan has been presented in the Court but the charge has not yet been framed. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court, if released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to petitioner in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009. 4. In Cr.M.P.(M) No. 85 of 2009, the petitioner has stated that he was arrested on 12.11.2007 and since then he is in custody. He filed earlier Cr.M.P.(M) No.847 of 2007 in this Court which was rejected on 13.12.2007. There is no averment that order dated 13.12.2007 was assailed by petitioner in the Supreme Court. Rest of the grounds in support of the bail application are on the same lines as in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to petitioner in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 85 of 2009. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009 on the ground that the petitioner had already 3 assailed order dated 31.3.2008 of this Court passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 207 of 2008 by way of SLP in the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11.9.2008. There is no change of circumstance after the dismissal of the SLP. The alleged accident of the father of the petitioner is no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner. It has not been stated in the application when the father met with an accident and what is his present condition. The adverse affect on the business of the petitioner due to his custody is neither a change of circumstance nor a ground for bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied State of Tamilnadu Vs. S.A. Raja, (2005) 8, S.C.C., 380, in support of his submission for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. In State of Tamilnadu Vs. S.A. Raja (supra), the Supreme court has held that when a learned Single Judge of the same Court had denied the bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without their 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. The petitioner has come forward with the plea that order dated 31.3.2008 of this Court refusing bail to him in FIR No. 153 of 2007 was earlier assailed by him by way of SLP in the Supreme Court which was rejected. There is no change of circumstance after the order dated 11.9.2008 of Supreme Court. The alleged accident of the father and there is no person to look after the business of the petitioner cannot be termed as subsequent events to grant bail to the petitioner. The Supreme Court has already refused bail to petitioner on 11.9.2008 in FIR No. 153/2007. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009. 7. The bail application of the petitioner in FIR No. 150 of 2007 was also rejected by this Court on 13.12.2007 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 847/2007. In FIR No. 150 of 2007 also the petitioner has failed to make out a case for 4 grant of bail on subsequent events. In addition in view of rejection of Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009 the petitioner otherwise cannot come out of custody even in FIR No. 150 of 2007. 8. The result of the above discussion, both the applications being Cr.M.P.(M) No. 84 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 85 of 2009 are dismissed. 9. The observations made in this order are for disposal of these applications only and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. March 27, 2009. (GR)