JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017 in Crl.M.P.No.2438 of 2016, dated 04.02.2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District in Crime No.145 of 2016, on the file of the respondent and set aside the same.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 04.02.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul.

2. The revision petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in Cr.No.145 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police. Initially, the said case has been registered against the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC. During the time of investigation, the section of law has been altered into Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. After altering the section of law as stated above, the revision petitioners filed a direction petition before this Court praying to direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Dindigul District to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider the petitioners' bail application and to grant bail on the date of surrender itself. This Court, by order, dated 29.09.2016 had directed the petitioners to surrender before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul District. Obeying the said order, the petitioners were surrendered before the said Court and thereafter, vide order, dated 18.10.2016 made in Crl.M.P.No.2438 of 2016 they were enlarged on bail.

3. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant, who was the victim in the alleged occurrence taking treatment in the hospital, was passed away and due to the death of the defacto complainant, the section of law had again altered as 294(b), 323 and 302 of IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. Only in the said circumstances, the respondent in this Criminal Revision Case filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017 before the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul District praying to cancel the order, dated 18.10.2016, wherein, the revision petitioners are granted with bail.

4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul after perusing the arguments advanced by either side, by order, dated 04.02.2017 allowed the application made in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017 and cancelled the bail granted in favour of the revision petitioners. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioners are before this Court praying to set aside the order, dated 04.02.2017 made in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2017.

5. I have heard Mr. C. Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records carefully.

6. Now, on going through the impugned order passed by the Courts below, it appears that due to altering of offence under Section 302 of IPC it requires for the Investigating Officer that he has to proceed with the investigation in all aspects and laid the final report and therefore, if the petitioners/accused are on bail, it would cause much prejudice to the investigation and therefore, the bail granted already in favour of the petitioners is liable to be cancelled.

7. In this occasion, it would relevant to see the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2019 (4) CTC 575, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-

“In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance, where after grant of Bail to an Accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:

(i) The Accused can surrender and apply for Bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of Bail, t