Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved with a prayer that the Charge Sheet dated 4.1.2007 numbered as 2/07, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 324, 325, 326, 504, 506, 336, I.P.C. may be quashed and till the disposal of the present application the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2811/07 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, District G.B. Nagar.

2. From the perusal of the papers filed with the application it appears that the complainant Satpal moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. against Jagmal and 9 others including the present applicant Smt. Rupwati. In that application, interalia, it was alleged that on 6.5.2006 the complainant Satpal received an information that the wife of Naresh had died in village Govilla, P.S. Jahagirpur, District G.B. Nagar. The complainant Satpal and others then went to village Govilla and when they were sitting at the house of Naresh, the accused assaulted them. Accused Yaspal also opened fire, from the country made pistol with an intent to commit murder. Complainants companion Jatan was caused injuries with “Palkati” and “Khatpawari”. In this incident the complainant Madan Singh also sustained injuries.

3. On this application the Magistrate ordered that the case be registered and investigated. The police then registered a case against the accused persons. The accused then moved an application for surrender before the Magistrate, whereupon a report was called for from the Police Station. It was reported that the accused are wanted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 506, 504, I.P.C. The applicant and other accused were then granted bail. However when the charge sheet was filed by the investigating officer he added Sections 307, 324, 326, 506, I.P.C. as well.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant at the time of arguments made a single submission that the co-accused Jagmal, Sukkhu, Kallu, Vishnu, Dinesh, Yaspal and Malkher had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 28302/2007 in the High Court in which the following order was passed on 4.12.2007.

“Heard Sri A.B.L. Gour learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Gour advocate for the applicants and the learned and also perused the materials on record.

It is said that the accused applicants were already on bail for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 325, 504, I.P.C. But on the basis of medical report then collected by the Investigation officer police has now submitted charge sheet and added the offence under Sections 324, 326, 504, 307, I.P.C.

Let the accused applicants be re-admitted on bail for the added offence under Sections 324, 326, 504, 307, I.P.C. subject to their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Application is disposed of accordingly.”

5. The learned counsel requested that similar orders may be passed in the present case so that the applicant Smt. Rupwati may also file her bail bonds in the added Sections.

6. I considered over the said argument and I feel that the said prayer cannot be allowed in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and others, 2007(58) ACC 577.

7. In Hamida’s case (supra) the accused persons were on bail for offences under Sections 324, 352, 506, IPC. The case was later on converted to one under Section 304, IPC. The accused persons then approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by making the following order :

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that if the applicants appear before the Court concerned and furnish their personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned the same shall be accepted under Section 304, IPC.

With these observations, the application is disposed of finally.”

8. The comp