IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 924 of 2009 Mustaqeem and others. …..…..Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1. By way of present petition, applicants are assailing charges framed by Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 26.11.2009 (wrongly typed in the certified copy as 26.11.2008). Mr. Parikshit Saini appearing for the petitioner fairly stated that learned Trial Court was within its jurisdiction to frame charges. I also find that learned Trial Court committed no mistake of law or jurisdiction while framing the charges. Mr. Parikshit Saini learned counsel for the petitioners stated that First Information Report was lodged against the accused under sections 354, 452, 323, 324 and 504 IPC. It is further submitted that chargesheet has been filed after investigation adding section 307 IPC. Mr. Parikshit Saini further stated that prior to filing of the chargesheet during the investigation accused were 2 released on bail vide order dated 27.09.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in case crime no. 222 of 2008 P.S. – Bhagwanpur, District – Hardwar. As per direction issued by learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 27.09.2008 personal bonds and sureties were furnished to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate. Mr. Parikshit Saini stated that now Trial Court is insisting to seek fresh bail for the offence under section 307 IPC which was added by the Investigating Officer in the chargesheet after due investigation. I do not agree with the submission made by Mr. Parikshit Saini on this point. In my opinion, no Court can ask to seek fresh bail for the section which was added in the chargesheet after the investigation. Once accused were released on bail for the offence shown in the First Information Report and later on if during investigation any other section is added the only order which can be passed by the court concerned is to ask the accused to furnish surety and personal bond for the offence added in the chargesheet. I find support from the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 (51) ACC 133. In para 4 of the judgment (supra) the court observed as under: “4. Now, Section 437 (1) (i) restrains the Court other than High Court or Court of Session (i.e. the Magistrate) from granting bail only in those cases, where a reasonable ground appears for believing that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In this view of the matter, there is no fetter on the 3 Magistrate’s right to grant bail in this case and the decision of the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi does not come in the way of this Court permitting the revisionists to continue on the earlier bail granted to them by the Magistrate. Accordingly, this revision is allowed to this extent and the revisionists are permitted to continue to remain on bail also under section 307 IPC, provided they furnish fresh bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.” In view of the above, this court expect that learned Trial Court shall not ask the accused to seek fresh bail rather shall ask the accused to furnish fresh personal bonds and sureties for the offence added in the chargesheet for the amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. With this direction, petition is disposed of. (Alok Singh, J.) 03.12.2009 SKS