B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are accused in Crime No. 968 of 1999. It is alleged that they have already been enlarged on bail for offence under Secs. 323, 324, 504, I. P. C. in this crime. That now the charge sheet have also been submitted under S. 326, I. P. C. the request has been made that the petitioners be permitted to file fresh bail bonds for offence under S. 326, I. P. C. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri R. N. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A. G. A. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following decisions : the first case referred to is Naresh v. State of U. P. 2001 (42) All Cri C 502. In this case, the F. I. R. was under Sec. 354, I. P. C. However, on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix, the case was converted under S. 376, I. P. C. In the circumstances, the accused were permitted to continue on the previous bail. The second case referred to is Smt. Radha Devi v. State of U. P. , 2002 (1) JIC 21 . In this case the Investigating Officer released the petitioners on bail u/s. 437, I. P. C. After the charge sheet, the Magistrate ordered the petitioners to apply again for bail. In the circumstances, this Court has directed the petitioner to continue on old bail bond. The last case referred to is Yaqoob v. State of U. P. , 2001 (1) JIC 735 . In this case, the accused were released on bail for offences under Ss. 324, 506, I. P. C. Charge sheet was also submitted under S. 324, 506, I. P. C. However, without obtaining permission, the Investigating Officer filed another charge sheet under Ss. 307, 506, I. P. C. Therefore, this Court ordered that the petitioner may be permitted to continue on bail on furnishing of the fresh bail bonds. ( 4 ) AFTER carefully considering the law laid down in above cases, I am of the view that none of the decisions has any application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the F. I. R. was registered for offence under Ss. 323, 324, I. P. C. All the offences were bailable and therefore, the petitioners were granted bail as of right. In the present case, the F. I. R. was registered for offence under Ss. 323, 324, I. P. C. All the offences were bailable and therefore, the petitioners were granted bail as of right. It does not appear that at that time the injury report were considered. Subsequently, the injury of the abdomen of Ramput which was caused by sharp edged weapon was found to be grievous. Therefore, the case was converted under S. 326, I. P. C. and charge sheet for offence under S. 326, I. P. C. was submitted. ( 5 ) THE earlier bail granted to the petitioners was granted in the absence of the injury report, supplementary report and the X-ray report, which have been prepared subsequent to the grant of bail. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the seriousness of the injuries, the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue on the same bail bonds. They will have to apply for fresh bail for offence under S. 326 I. P. C. ( 7 ) WITH this observation, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .