AMAR SARAN, J. This application has been filed for quashing a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings in case No. 56/9 of 2008 (State v. Sunil Son/), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Muzaffarnagar and alternatively for a direction to the Court below to accept fresh bail bonds under section 307 IPC as the applicant had already secured bail under section 324 IPC etc. 2. I have heard Shri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The FIR was registered on the basis of an application under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) alleging therein that on 18. 9. 2007 when the informant Akshai Kumar accompanied by his friend Amit Sachdeva had gone to Sukratal for the purpose of a holy dip in the Ganga and were returning at about 2. 30 P. M. , by their Innova vehicle, a Skoda vehicle tried to overtake their vehicle after they had crossed Bhopa. As the informants did not give a pass initially, subsequently when their Innova was overtaken by the applicants Skoda, 2-3 men got down from the latter, and hurled abuses. When the informants friend Amit got down to protest, one of the young men shouted that he thought too much of himself and he should be taught a lesson. At that time, the applicant, whom they knew from before, took out a knife and began to assault Amit. When the informant and others raised a cry, then the applicant and other accused fled away in their vehicle. Amit was badly injured and severely bleeding from his hand and stomach. He was sent for medical examination to the Government Hospital, Bhopa, where looking to his serious condition he was referred to the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. 4. As the police did not register the FIR for an attempt to murder of Amit even on application to the SSP, Muzaffarnagar dated 20. 9. 2007, thereafter the application as above was filed by the informant on 25. 9. 2007 under section 156 (3) of the Code before the learned Magistrate by the informant, who directed the police to register and investigate the case. 5. Firstly it was argued by the. 9. 2007, thereafter the application as above was filed by the informant on 25. 9. 2007 under section 156 (3) of the Code before the learned Magistrate by the informant, who directed the police to register and investigate the case. 5. Firstly it was argued by the. learned Counsel for the applicant that as the original medical report has disappeared and the police were not aware of the whereabouts of the Home Guard Rajvir who had allegedly taken Amit for medical examination hence no credence could be placed on the annexed copy of the medical report. This in my view is a matter for appreciation by the Trial Court. Moreover, admittedly in his statement Dr. R. S. Rathi, In-charge PHC, Bhopa has confirmed the medical examination of the injured Amit Sachdeva at PHC, Bhopa at 3. 00 P. M. On 18. 9. 2007. He also states that one Home Guard Rajvir has brought the injured to the hospital. He also confirmed that he had immediately referred the injured to the district hospital, Muzaffarnagar and advised X-ray because injury No. 2 was such which could have been fatal for life. Simply because in the earlier statement by the doctor recorded by the first I. O. , this fact that the injury could have been dangerous to life was not mentioned could not be taken to be such an important ground that the case ought to have been taken out from the purview of section 307 IPC at this stage itself. 6. In such circumstances, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the case has wrongly been converted from sections 324 to 307 IPC by the second Investigating Officer in a mala fide manner after the first Investigating Officer had only registered a case under sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC, police station Bhopa at case crime No. 35 of 2007 and after the applicant had secured bail on that basis on 7. 12. 2007. 7. Another submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant that blood stained clothes of the injured were not produced before the first investigating officer or there is no evidence of hospitalization, also provides no ground either for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet or for concluding that an offence only under section 324 IPC is disclosed. 8. 2007. 7. Another submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant that blood stained clothes of the injured were not produced before the first investigating officer or there is no evidence of hospitalization, also provides no ground either for quashing the FIR and the charge-sheet or for concluding that an offence only under section 324 IPC is disclosed. 8. One other submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that as there was some property dispute of the applicant with alleged land mafias Amit Garg and Mukesh Garg, who had purchased the shop, which was tenanted by the applicants father and who had got several attempts made on the life of the applicant with the aid of their henchmen in regard to which several complaints were made to various authorities, hence this false FIR has been got lodged by opposite party No. 2 at the instance of the mafias. 9. There is nothing on record to show any connection between opposite party No. 2 and the so-called mafias Amit and Mukesh Garg. Moreover, on such vague allegations of mala fide, little cause is made out for doubting the authenticity of the injury report or the FIR. Moreover, such allegation of mala fide etc. cannot be looked into in an application under section 482 of the Code and the applicant will have ample opportunity to raise them during trial. 10. Another submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has an alibi as he was present in Delhi High Court on 18. 9. 2007 from 10. 00 A. M. to 1. 00 P. M in connection with the case of his mother about which one Amit Vohra, a practising advocate of Patiala Courts has filed an affidavit and the applicant has also filed a visitor pass of the Delhi High Court purportedly in his name relating to that date. 11. All these are defence documents, which cannot be considered in an application under section 482 of the Code as their value and worth will be appreciated by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 12. 11. All these are defence documents, which cannot be considered in an application under section 482 of the Code as their value and worth will be appreciated by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. 12. It is also argued that as the complainant is a well to do person, who was travelling in an Innova vehicle, there was no reason for the FIR not to have been registered initially by the police under sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC if indeed they had received the serious injuries in the incident as suggested. 13. This Court is not in a position to decide on the comparative status of the parties or to probe into the reasons as to the circumstances which compelled the informant to take recourse to filing an application under section 156 (3) of the Code for getting the case registered and why only a case under the lesser sections was registered initially and whether any influence was brought to bear on the police from the side of the complainant or the applicant under these circumstances. These are all matters which again will be appreciated by the Trial Court. 14. There is, therefore, no ground to quash the charge-sheet or criminal proceedings against the applicant as clearly a prima facie case is disclosed at this stage. 15. The next, contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that as the applicant has already been bailed out by the Magistrate concerned by an order dated 7. 12. 2007, he should be permitted to remain on the same bail or on fresh bail bonds. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted because as observed by the Apex Court in Hamida v. Rashid alias Rasheed and others1. 2007 (58) ACC 577. that it is improper for the High Court to pass such orders allowing the accused to continue on the earlier bail without surrendering under the newly added sections as it amounts to abusing the provisions of section 482 Cr. P. C. and the Court concerned is mandated to require an accused to surrender under such circumstances for applying for bail under the newly added sections. 16. P. C. and the Court concerned is mandated to require an accused to surrender under such circumstances for applying for bail under the newly added sections. 16. The contention that the non-bailable warrant against the applicant be stayed and the Magistrate concerned be directed to dispose of his bail application on the same day when he surrenders, can also not be accepted considering the gravity of the injury, because the examining doctor has observed that the second injury could be fatal to life. There were three incised wounds, two of which were on the abdomen and the second injury was a stab wound, 1. 5 c. m. x 0. 5 c. m. x not probed front on right side abdomen transversely, with clean cut margin, with fresh clotted blood, for which X-ray was advised, 23 c. m. below the right nipple. Injury No. 3 was also an incised wound on the right side of abdomen 3 c. m. x 0. 5 c. m. x 0. 2 c. m. deep and fresh clotted blood was present 4 c. m. away from umbilicus at 9 Oclock position. The patient was also referred to the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. 17. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this application, it is accordingly rejected. 18. However, it is provided that if the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned within four weeks and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law by the Court below. Application Rejected. .