ORDER

Heard.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the father of the girls alleged to have been raped by the respondents. At the first instance the case was only for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and the respondents applied for bail and were released on bail. Subsequently, the investigating officers came to know that the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was also involved. Then an application was made for cancellation of the bail. On the said application the Court passed the following order on 18-8-2000.

"The accused are released on bail while offence under Section 363 was registered. Offence under Section 376 IPC was disclosed later on. Hence it is necessary to arrest the accused. Permission is granted to arrest the accused."

3. It was doubtful whether a court can order re-arrest of a person when that person was already on bail without cancelling the first bail order. But we are not inclined to enter into that aspect in the appeal, particularly since we can read that order as tantamounting to cancellation of the bail already granted to the respondents. Whether it is right or wrong the respondents also had taken it like that and that is why they applied for anticipatory bail b