JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge: Heard. The petitioner is in custody in connection with case FIR No. 80 of 2014, dated 3.3.2014, registered at Police Station, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. under sections 323, 341, 307 IPC. 2. The respondents have furnished the status report and as per the allegations of the prosecution, it appears that on 3.3.2014, the husband of the informant had gone to the courts at Chamba in connection with some work. At about 3.15 p.m., the informant came to know that her husband had been attacked by the bail petitioner. It is further alleged that when the informant alongwith her son reached the court premises at Chamba, where her husband was stated to be lying in an unconscious condition, had already been taken to the hospital for treatment. On reaching the hospital, the informant came to know from her husband that he had been attacked by the bail petitioner and certain other persons. On such allegations, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. Initially a case, under sections 323, 341 and 307 IPC was registered, but later on sections 212, 225, 120B and 34 IPC were also added. 3. At the outset, it may be pointed out that petitioner had initially preferred a bail petition being Cr.MP(M) No. 238 of 2014 before this court, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J). Thereafter, again a similar application for grant of bail was moved being Cr.MP(M) No. 352 of 2014, in which arguments were addressed for some time, but then the same was withdrawn. Thereafter undeterred the petitioner preferred yet another bail application, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 456 of 2014, which too was dismissed by this court. While rejecting the bail application, this court had accorded the following reasons:- “4. The petitioner has again moved this court for grant of bail on the same allegations as had been set out in the earlier bail applications. The prosecution alongwith the status report has annexed the details of cases registered against the petitioner, a perusal whereof shows that till date as many as 18 cases under different provisions of law have been registered against the petitioner. No doubt, in some of the cases the petitioner has either been admonished or acquitted, but most of the cases he has compromised the matter. No doubt, in some of the cases the petitioner has either been admonished or acquitted, but most of the cases he has compromised the matter. Yet in some of the cases petitioner is already under trial. The most of the offences relate to Chapter VI qua affecting the human body, which clearly proves that antecedents, behaviour and past conduct of the petitioner in no manner can be said to be aboveboard. 5. The petitioner appears to be a habitual offender. Moreover, there is no change in the circumstances that too in favour of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. I need not to make any further observations on the conduct of the petitioner, lest it prejudice the petitioner in the course of the trial.” 4. Now the petitioner has claimed that there are changed circumstances, which entitled him for grant of bail. The changed circumstances, according to him are that the challan has been put in in a competent court of law and having remained in custody for more than four months, the petitioner is entitled to bail. 5. On the pointed inquiry of this court, the petitioner had candidly admitted that the accusation against the petitioner in the final report remain the same as was there when this court rejected his earlier bail application. This to my mind cannot be considered to be a changed circumstance in favour of the petitioner rather this is a circumstance which goes totally against the petitioner. It would have been an entirely different matter in case the FIR would have been registered for a far more serious offence and the final report had been submitted for an accusation of a lesser offence. But in this case all through the petitioner has been accused of committing various offences including section 307 IPC. 6. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances, but without change in circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of earlier judgement, which is not permissible under the law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others 2001(1) SCC 169 . Further more the contention raised that trial had not yet commenced though a final report has been presented would not itself amount to change in circumstances. Further more the contention raised that trial had not yet commenced though a final report has been presented would not itself amount to change in circumstances. So far as the change in circumstances are concerned the same have to be substantive and not mere cosmetic change or peripheral change in the erstwhile circumstances and that the change ought to be such which would have “impact on the previous decision”. Once the application has been rejected, there is no question of granting a similar prayer as the same would be virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. Therefore, even though there is room for filing subsequent bail application in cases where the earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier can move subsequent bail application. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another (2005) 2 SCC 42 . 7. Faced with such situation, Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner would then strenuously contend that this is a case where on the face of the allegations of the prosecution, a case under section 307 IPC by no stretch of imagination is made out and at best only a case under section 325 IPC is made out against the petitioner. I am afraid that at this stage the court cannot go into the merits, because these are the matters which are required to be established during the trial. 8. Consequently, I find no merit in the present petition the same is rejected. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.