Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajeev Surana and Hemant Taylor
For the Respondent: Laxman Meena, P.P. and Kamlendra Sihag

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

• When a graver and non-bailable offense is added to the charges after bail has been granted for bailable offenses, the benefit of bail generally stands canceled (!) (!) .
• The legal principle is that bail granted for minor or bailable offenses cannot continue once a more serious, non-bailable offense is included in the case (!) (!) .
• The court has the authority to cancel the bail if a non-bailable offense is added during investigation, and this cancellation is supported by statutory provisions and judicial precedents (!) (!) .
• The order rejecting the application for bail cancellation based on the addition of a graver offense is not sustainable, and such benefit should be revoked to uphold legal principles (!) .
• The application for cancellation of bail can be filed by the State or investigating authority, and the court can exercise its power to cancel bail even if the original order was not challenged earlier (!) .
• Once a non-bailable offense is added, the accused can surrender and apply for bail in relation to the new charges, and the court may direct arrest or custody based on the circumstances (!) (!) .
• The legal framework allows for the arrest of an already-bailed accused upon addition of a graver offense, but this requires a court order (!) .
• The principle that the benefit of bail is not automatic upon the addition of a non-bailable offense is well established, and courts are empowered to revoke bail in such cases (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice.