IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1134 of 2010. Date of decision: 08.10.2010. Jagdish Chand … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Anoop Chitkara, Advocate with Ms.Divya Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. When this petition was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the entire evidence in the case has been recorded by the learned trial Court and the case is now at the stage of arguments. 2. In these circumstances, I do not consider it to be an appropriate case in which this Court should be entertaining this petition. It will be open to the petitioner to approach to the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier also on two occasions the petitioner had approached the learned trial Court, but his bail petition was rejected and that if he now files a fresh application, the decision in the previous applications would influence the learned trial Court and his application would meet the same fate. 4. This apprehension is unfounded. It is well settled that bail is granted on settled principles of law and on the facts and circumstances on the record and if the trial is now complete, obviously, the circumstances would have changed from those which existed at the time when previous applications were moved. 5. This petition is disposed of. In case the petitioner approaches the learned trial Court the application shall be considered on its own merits by the learned trial Court. October 8, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.