The filing of a charge sheet does not constitute a material change in circumstances for granting bail; prior denials remain unless substantial changes are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were arrested vide FIR No. 175 of 2024, dated 28.7.2024, at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 249 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita , 2023. The petitioners are innocent, and they were falsely implicated. The police have filed a charge sheet before the Court, and the matter is pending for committal to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The statements of the witnesses Aditya @ Kanu and Vinod Kumar, recorded under Section 180 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhta, show that a concocted version was presented before the Court. The investigation is biased. There are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the incident. The injured was admitted to a private hospital, and FIRs have been registered against the hospital for illegal activities. The informant party got a forged report prepared from the hospital. No independent witness was associated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that Pawan Kumar informed the police on 27.07.2024 at about 9:14 PM that Vinod and Kannu were injured by Aditya and his friends by using darat. They were taken to different hospitals for treatment. The police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim, Aditya, who stated that he and his friend Vinod Kumar, alias Viku, had gone towards Ganoh on 27.07.2024. They reached Ganoh Bazar Chowk at 7:15 PM. They were taking juice when Aditya Dadwal, Jagdev Dadwal and Rahul Kumar came to them and said that they were roaming around in the bazaar after pretending to be Don. Vinod enquired as to why the accused party was using such language. The accused started arguing with the informant party and also pushed them. Aditya Dadwal brought Darat and inflicted a blow on the head of Vinod. He also inflicted blows on the right arm of the victim/informant, Aditya. Jagdev Dadwal inflicted blows using stones, and Rahul Kumar gave beatings with kicks and fists blows. The accused ran away in their vehicle bearing registration No. HP38D-7272. The police conducted the investigation and arrested the accused near the Hollywood Hotel. The accused, Aditya, made a disclosure statement and got recovered a darat with which the injuries were inflicted. The police seized darat. The articles were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and blood was found on the soil, glove, cotton swabs, T-Shirt and Pants of Aditya, T-Shirt, Vest, Underwear and Pants of Vinod Kumar and darat. As per the report, DNA from the blood on the rexine piece matched with the DNA of Aditya. DNA from the soil, glove and darat matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar. DNA from the T-shirt of Aditya matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. DNA from the Pants of Aditya matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. DNA from the pants of Vinod Kumar matched with the DNA of Vinod Kumar and Aditya. As per the medical report, the injuries sustained by the victim were dangerous and could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. FIR No. 357 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner Jagdev Singh, and he was acquitted on 11.6.2014. FIR No. 133 of 2022, dated 28.4.2022, was registered against the petitioner Jagdev, and he was acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, on 8.3.2025. The petitioners can intimidate the witnesses in case of their release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

4. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the p