The court emphasized the right of an accused to apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences and the investigating agency's requirement to obtain an order from the court before arresting an accused already on bail.

JUDGMENT :

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. By this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail, upon FIR No. 472, dated 05.12.2020, having been registered at Police Station City Barnala, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 451, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC, with Sections 325 and 459 thereof added subsequently in the FIR.

2. Today learned counsel for the petitioners cites a judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (Crl. Appeal No. 816-817 of 2019, decided on 01.07.2019), wherein, after discussing the case law on the issue of a right of an accused to continue to remain on bail after bail was already granted to him in respect of offences earlier mentioned in the FIR, upon the addition of offences subsequently in the same FIR, it was held in paragraph 29 of that judgment 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, the accused can certainly be arrested.

(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the accused and his custody.

(iii) The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.

(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.”

3. In the present case the FIR was registered against the petitioners, with 4-5 other persons also arraigned as accused, for the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 451, 323, 148 and 149 of the IPC.

4. The offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323 of the IPC being bailable offences, the petitioners were stated to have been admitted to bail on the date of the registration of the FIR itself, i.e. 05.12.2020.

5. Thereafter, with one of the injuries caused on the uncle of the complainant having been found to be a fracture on his arm, an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC was added along with an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 459 of the IPC, and with the offence punishable under Section 451 thereof having been deleted.

6. That having happened, the petitioners applied for pre-arrest bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the IPC before the learned Sessions Court, with that petition having been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide his order dated 01.04.2021, holding essentially that the petitioners having scaled the house of the ‘complainant party’ and with one person having received a grievous injury, their custodial interrogation would be required, that having been the stand taken by the public prosecutor before that court.

7. When the matter came up before this court yesterday, learned counsel had wished to cite a judgment to submit that once a person had been admitted to bail in respect of certain offences, he would normally be allowed to remain on bail even after the addition of subsequent offences; however, a perusal of that judgment cited by him today, referred to hereinabove, does not actuall