Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- It is a unique case of high handedness on the part of the police to arrest and lodge in jail an infirm and old lady of 70 years who was granted bail by the learned Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Manjit Kaur, wife of Charanjit Singh, resident of House No. 128, Aman Nagar, Jalandhar, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364 and 365, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 217, dated 30.12.2012, registered at Police Station, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Surinder Kumar, father of Inderjit Kaur, informed the police that on 6.12.2012, at 9.30 a.m., his daughters, namely, Neetu Singh and Inderjit Kaur, were present at the house. Inderjit Kaur left the house, but did not come back till 30.12.2012, the day on which the matter was reported to the police. He (complainant) expressed suspicion on Amrik Singh, son of Gulzar Singh, resident of Raipur Rasool. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 365, IPC. During investigation, Manjit Kaur, who is mother-in-law of Amrik Singh, was arrested on 17.1.2013 and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide his detailed order dated 23.1.2013 (Annexure P-8).

4. On 8.3.2013, the complainant, Surinder Kumar, suffered a supplementary statement in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., to the effect that Inderjit Kaur was abducted by Amrik Singh and his co-accused with an intention to kill her, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, was added in the FIR and the petitioner, Manjit Kaur was re-arrested on 15.6.2013.

5. Learned counsel contends that once the petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction in this very case, and if some new offence was added, in that eventuality, the police could have arrested the petitioner only after obtaining permission from the Court. He further submits that it was brought to the notice of the investigating officer, SI Pritam Singh of Police Station, Maqsudan, Police District Jalandhar (Rural), that the alleged detenue was alive and she had left her house with her own free will. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 6.12.2012, Inderjit Kaur had given a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), that she had left her house with her own free will and no one had abducted her. On 10.12.2012, yet another representation was made by Inderjit Kaur, but no action was taken on the said representations. He further submits that Inderjit Kaur had filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., before this Court seeking protection to her life and liberty, but the same was withdrawn on 21.12.2012 with permission to pursue her representations presented to the higher police officers. He further submits that the alleged detenue is still present before this Court, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the ingredients of Section 364, IPC, were attracted in the present case. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner for second time for the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, is illegal.

6. Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the petitioner was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 365, IPC, and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated 23.1.2013. He further submits that the complainant made a supplementary statement in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., disclosing that Inderjit Kaur was seen in the company of the petitioner and her co-accused and she (Inderjit Kaur) might have been killed. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, was added and the petitioner was re-arrested. However, he submits that no permission from the Court was sought before her arrest for second time.

7. Learned counsel for the com