S.S.NIJJAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner is alleged to have only injured the complainant and his father on non-vital parts. Initially, the FIR had been registered only under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, 307 and 452 IPC. At that time, bail had been granted to the petitioner. Subsequently, offence under Section 307 IPC was added. Inspite of bail having been granted to the petitioner, he was arrested on 16.9.2000. Mr. Gorkah Nath submits that bail having been granted to him earlier could only have been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. He relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh v. C.B.I. Chandigarh, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 820 : 1998(1) Judicial Reports (Criminal) 215. In this case, it is held as under :- "The mere fact that subsequently a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 364/346, IPC, or that on an application made by the prosecution under Section 315 of the Code, an offence under Sections 302/120-B of IPC was added against the petitioner, would not affect the right of the petitioner to remain on bail unless the bail is cancelled on the well-recognised principles detailed by the apex court in Aslam Babalal Desai's case (supra)." Even the injury, on the basis of which offence under Section 307 IPC has been added, was caused by co-accused Balraj. In view of the above, it is a fit case for grant of bail. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. Petition allowed.;