Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 1027
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA, J
Sange Chukla – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP – Respondent
AB 25 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Jumnya Rina, H.Dirchi,Mukesh Prasad,S K Sharma
For the Respondent: P P of AP,
The addition of new charges after the grant of bail does not necessitate a new bail application if an existing application is pending.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 333, 155(2), 3(5), 140(3), 127 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Application for pre-arrest bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case where new sections were added post the grant of interim bail - The court noted that an anticipatory bail application was already pending and the current petition was not maintainable. (Paras 2, 5, 7)
(B) Bail - The court emphasized that if new cognizable and non-bailable offences are added after bail is granted, the accused can apply for bail for those offences, but must do so through the proper channels. (Paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for pre-arrest bail under the BNS in connection with a case where new sections were added after an interim bail was granted. The court noted that the petitioner was already enjoying interim bail and that the current petition was not maintainable due to the pending application.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petition could not be entertained as the matter was already pending and the petitioner could raise concerns in the earlier application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the current application for pre-arrest bail was maintainable given the pending anticipatory bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the addition of new sections does not warrant a separate application for bail while another application is pending, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. S. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Mechuka P.S. Case No. 01/2025, under Sections 333/ 155(2) /3(5)/ 140(3) /127 of the BNS, read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
3. During the course of the hearing, Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that one anticipatory bail application is already pending before this Court against the present petitioner arising out of the same FIR. In this regard, vide Order dated 19.02.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner, fixing the same for the Case Diary on 07.03.2025. He further submitted that, solely based on the addition of certain sections, i.e., the newly added Sections 140(3)/127 of the BNS, the present petition has been filed seeking further protection from this Court, which is not at all maintainable. Moreover, on the strength of the order passed on 19.02.2025, the petitioner is currently enjoying the protection of interim pre-arrest bail. To date, no petition has been filed by the investigation agency or the prosecution for the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the newly added sections.
4. He further submitted that after obtaining the bail, if, any sections are added, the petitioner may approach the Court with a fresh application for bail for further protection. Accordinlgy, he relied on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326, and emphasized paragraph 31 of the said judgment, which read as under:
31. 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:-
31.1. 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.
31.2. 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.
31.3. 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.
31.4. 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.
5. Therefore, Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this petition is not maintainable, as the subject matter of the connected anticipatory bail application [AB Case No.16/2025, which is fixed on 07.03.2025, is yet to be decided.
6. In this context, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fact that the present petition also arises out of the same FIR for the same petitioner. However, there is an apprehension of being arrested after the addition of the newly added sections, for which the present application has been filed. He further requests that the instant petition be tagged along with the earlier application [AB Case No. 16/2025], and that a necessary order be passed accordingly.
7. Conside
