( 1 ) NOTICE Mr. Butalia, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice.

( 2 )

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his application for pre-arrest bail has been rejected vide order dated 30. 1. 2001 on the ground that more offences have been added by the police to the original FIR.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel was not in a position to give me any explanation as to why the second pre-arrest bail application was moved when the petitioner had been admitted to pre-arrest bail by order dated 17. 1. 2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in FIR No. 13/2001, Police Station, Usmanpur. The only explanation that came from the learned counsel was that the police had added more sections to the original FIR and, therefore, were threatening arrest.

( 5 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the State that if during investigation any changes are made in the offences mentioned in the FIR, the police can take into custody a person even though he has been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the court in the same FIR.

( 6 ) IF, as has been suggested by learned counsel for the State, the police is allowed such a liberty, it would completely defeat the ends of justice and