Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Anoop Dhand, Advocate on behalf of the applicants in FIR No.201/2007 of police station Reenus, District Sikar, in the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 452, 143, 148, 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition.

4. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is found that one F.I.R. No. 201/2007 was registered in Police Station Reengus against the petitioners in the offences under Sections 143, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 354 of IPC. Police granted bail to the petitioners under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. treating all the offences to be bailable. Thereafter, S.H.O., Police Station Reengus submitted an application through A.P.P. under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C., seeking cancellation of bail as the offence under Section 452 of IPC had been added later on during investigation, which was non-bailable. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Reengus dismissed the prayer of the police on the ground that under sub-section (5) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. the court had the powers to cancel the bail which had been granted by that Court only. Since in the instant case the bail was granted by police under Section 436 of Cr.P.C., the bail already granted could not be cancelled by the Court.

5. Aggrieved with this order, the State moved an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar, Camp at Srimadhopur, again seeking the cancellation of bail already granted to the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that since the non-bailable offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. was added later on by the Police during the investigation the Court cancelled the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners on 15.8.2007. Now apprehending their arrest in a non-bailable offence under Section 452 IPC, the petitioners have approached this Court to seek anticipatory bail.

6. At the very outset, I would like to point out that the offence under Section 452 of IPC was not added later on by the police, during investigation but having gone through the "police proceeding" ?dk;Zokgh iqfyl? appended at the bottom of F.I.R. No. 201/2007 of Police Station Reengus, it is found that the case was registered, inter alia, in the offence under Section 452 of IPC also. The S.H.O., Police Station Reengus, granted bail to the petitioners in all these offences. It is wrong to state that the offence under Section 452 of IPC was added on by police during investigation.

7. Now the most crucial question springing for consideration in the instant case is that "should the Court cancel the bail of the petitioners already granted to them simply for the reason that a new offence u/S. 452 of IPC which is non-bailable has been added later on during investigation?"

8. In Shukhpal vs. State of Rajasthan 1988 (1) RLW 283 it has been held that "when a person is on anticipatory bail and some new offences have been added during investigation, then police cannot arrest an accused by adding a non-bailable offence. The police must seek an order from the court for cancellation of bail already granted to a person."

9. In Gheesya & others vs. State of Rajasthan R.C.C. Dec., 1988 Page 534 it has been held that "the principle that when a person is released on bail or released on anticipatory bail, he cannot be arrested if another offence is found to have been committed by him at the time of investigation of the case, is well settled and if the court considers it proper then the bail granted can be cancelled under Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. So far, this principles is well established. However, it can be said that the ground for cancellation of bail should not be merely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document