- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. By means of this petition under Scetion 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant has requested for permission to file fresh bail bonds in case No. 169 of 1999, State v. Banajeet under Section 304-A I. P. C. now converted under Section 302, I. P. C, PS. Akbarpur district Kanpur Dehat.
(2.) I have heard Sri S. R. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. It if contended by the learned coun sel for the applicant that the applicant was already released on bail, by the Court for offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. How ever, the charge sheet have now been sub mitted under Section 302 I. P. C. That there fore, the applicant maybe permitted to file fresh bail bonds for that offence and he is not required to obtain fresh order for bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the following cases. Leading case on the point is Ugrasen Singh v. Stale of U. R, 1993 (30) ACC 531; 1993 JIC 713 (All ). This is a Division Bench decision and in this case the bail was granted under Sections 336, 504,506,323,427 I. P. C. The case was con verted under Section 308 I. P. C. The ac cused were permitted to file fresh bail bonds under Section 308 I. P. C. It was ob served that the distinction between Sec tions 323 and 308 I. P. C. can depend upon the allegations, the correctness, which naturally could not be altered and are not on the basis of the alteration vide the report of the police. It was further ob served that when a person is once granted bail in respect of particular crime, the sub sequent change in the matter of reference to the section under the offences though it may be made by the police will remain subject of consideration by the Court.
(3.) THE above leading case on the point and was followed the case of Junaid Alam v. State of U. R, 1995 (32) ACC 624, where the accused, who were granted bail for offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I. P. C. were permitted to file fresh bail bonds for change of offence under Section 307 I. P. C. as they did not misuse the bail. Similar view was also taken in the case of Daddan Singh v. State of U. R, 1994 UP Cr R 332. In this case, the bail was granted for offence under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I. P. C. triable by the Magistrate on conversion of case under Section 308 I. P. C, the applicants were per mitted to file fresh bail bonds. In the case of Radhey Shyam. State of U. R, 1991 (28) ACC 652; 1991 JIC 583 (All), the accused were granted bail for offence under Section 324 I. P. C. and were permitted to file fresh bail bonds after the conversion of case under Section 307 I. P. C. In Sumer Chand v. State of U. P,1999 (2) JIC 402. It was observed that if the accused is granted bail on the same facts, they need not to surrender before the Court and apply for fresh bail in the newly added sections and the furnishing of fresh bail bonds is just and proper. Ave considered the law laid down in all these cases carefully but is afraid that none of them is of any help to the ap plicant. The reason is that the applicant was granted bail for offence under Section 304-A I. P. C. in which the applicant is en titled to the bail as of right under Section 436 Cr. P. C. Therefore, where the offence alleged by the prosecution is under Section 304-A I. P. C, the accused is entitled to the bail without consideration of the facts. Therefore, it can be presumed that while. granting bail under Section 304-A I. P. C. to the applicant, the facts were not con sidered and he was granted the facility of the bail as he was entitled to same as of right. The bail which was granted without consideration of the facts cannot be ex tended for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. which is heinous offence. Before granting the bail under Section 302 I. P. C. therefore, the consideration of the facts is necessary and the applicant cannot be permitted to file fresh bail bonds. The petition is there fore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;