JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 245 of 2009 dated 19.7.2009 registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.7.2009 Medical Officer, Nurpur on telephone informed the Police Station, Nurpur that a burn case of a woman had come in the hospital for treatment. ASI Mukesh Kumar went to the hospital, after obtaining the opinion of the doctor statement of Ranju Bala was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by ASI Mukesh Kumar. The victim stated that she was married in the year 2003 and had two children, elder 5 ½ years and younger 4 years old. She alleged that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband had been ill-treating her since the time of her marriage. On 19.7.2009 at about 9.00 a.m. her husband Rajiv alias Ranju abused her, he takes too much liquor. The complainant stated that accused party had been ill-treating her, therefore, she would die and her husband retorted let the complainant die. On this, out of rage and because of their ill-treatment, the complainant poured kerosene oil on her person and ignited it with match stick. The complainant cried but nobody came forward to rescue her. Thereafter, her husband took her to hospital. The complainant alleged that her father-in-law ill-treated her more in comparison to others. But her mother-in-law, sister-in-law Seema and husband also ill-treated her. The statement was attested by Tehsildar, Nurpur on 19.7.2009, on this case was registered. The accused were arrested on 19.7.2009. The complainant Ranju died on 20.7.2009 and thereupon Section 306 IPC was also added. The accused Jamuna Devi and Seema Devi have been released on bail by the High Court and the remaining two accused Rajiv and Kushal Dev petitioner are still in jail. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 13.11.2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation in the case is complete and challan has been submitted in the Court, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala on 13.11.2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the investigation in the case is complete and challan has been submitted in the Court, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. It 3 has been submitted that the bail application has been rejected vide order dated 13.11.2009 mainly on the ground that there is no change of circumstance, whereas the bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was filed after the filing of challan in the Court. It has been submitted that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner is suffering from diabetes. The petitioner has sustained injury in his right foot which is not healing. The doctor treating the petitioner told him that gangrene can develop in his foot. The trial of the case will take some time and in these circumstances, continuous detention of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. 4. The deceased in her statement has named petitioner for ill-treatment more. In the order dated 4.9.2009 it has been observed that investigation in the case is complete. The challan is likely to be filed in the Court very shortly. In other words bail application of the petitioner was considered till the stage of completion of investigation and was rejected vide order dated 4.9.2009. The mere filing of challan in these circumstances cannot be termed as change of circumstance after the order dated 4.9.2009. The petitioner is getting treatment of his ailment. The petitioner has not made out any new case for grant of bail, resultantly petition is dismissed.