IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 734 of 2011. Date of decision : 27.9.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Bhupinder 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. Bhupinder Ahuja and Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the applicant on bail in FIR No. 189 of 2011 dated 21.5.2011, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, under Section 307 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that applicant has been arrested on 21.5.2011 for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in FIR No. 189 of 2011 registered on 21.5.2011 at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra. It has been stated that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The applicant is suffering on account of his confinement in jail and his __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 health has deteriorated so also his financial condition. The investigation in the case is complete. The continuous detention of the applicant is not required in the case. The applicant is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The applicant will be in a position to defend himself properly in case he is released on bail. It has been stated that the applicant earlier filed bail application which was dismissed on 4.8.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, similarly another application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 9.9.2011. It has been stated that the applicant is innocent and prayer has been made for releasing the applicant on bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The applicant attacked Parvinder Kumar and his wife Kiran Bala without any provocation. It has been stated that there is no change of circumstance after the order dated 9.9.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala when the bail application of the applicant was dismissed. 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is change of circumstance after filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.PC., he has relied Laxman Irappa Hatti and another vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 Cri.L.J.3802. The order dated 9.9.2011 passed by 3 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala indicates that the challan was filed in the Court after completion of investigation when the bail application of the applicant was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 9.9.2011. The challan against the petitioner was already filed at the time of consideration of bail application by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 9.9.2011, hence the present bail application cannot be considered to be based upon change of circumstance after filing of challan. 5. This apart, the allegation against the applicant is that he hit Parvinder Kumar and his wife Kiran Bala with ‘Belcha’ without any provocation. In the status report, it has been stated that the injured were removed to Nurpur hospital and from there to RPMC, Tanda in view of serious nature of injuries sustained by the injured. It has also been stated in the status report that the injured remained unconscious for about 3-4 days. The ‘Belcha’ has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 6. The two applications filed by the applicant have been dismissed on 4.8.2011 and 9.9.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala. The present bail application was filed on 16.9.2011. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the matter be sent back to learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala after setting- aside the order dated 9.9.2011. The applicant has filed bail application, he has not assailed the order dated 9.9.2011 in revision nor in the 4 application he has prayed for setting-aside or quashing order dated 9.9.2011. In these circumstances, the question of setting-aside order dated 9.9.2011 does not arise. 7. The applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case has failed to make out any case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage. The application is accordingly, dismissed. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 27, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.