Order

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bandikui, District Dausa by which an application submitted by the Public Prosecutor under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of the accused-respondents has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that bail was granted to the accused-respondents by the Investigating Officer himself, finding a case against them under Section 323, 341, 427, 325, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. As all the offences are non-cognizable and bailable in nature the accused-respondents were released on bail, while their bail bonds were taken by the concerned Investigating Officer. Learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation, the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was also found to be proved against the accused-respondents and even charge-sheet was also submitted against them under Sections 323, 341, 427, 325, 504 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, on account of addition of an offence punishable under Section 308 IPC which is a non-bailable offence, an application was submitted by the Public Prosecutor for cancellation of bail of the accused-respondents, under the changed circumstances, but the said application has been rejected by the Court below, while passing the order impugned. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supports the contentions raised by learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, while counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents submits that initially the offence was found to be proved against the accused-respondents only under Sections 323, 341, 427, 325, 504 read with Section 34 IPC and that is why the Investigating Officer himself granted bail to the accused-respondents, after taking their bail bonds. He submits that simply by addition of Section 308 IPC, the bail bonds of the accused-respondents cannot be cancelled. He further submits that the Court below has passed a cogent and reasoned order and the same is justified, which does not require any interference of this Court and the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR No.36/2024 was registered against the accused-respondents with the Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa for the offfences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 and 427 IPC and since the alleged offences were bailable in nature, the Investigating Officer himself released the accused-respondents on bail, after taking their bail bonds.

6. During the course of investigation, since the injuries sustained by the injured were found to be grievous, the offence under Section 308 IPC was added, and the same was found to be proved against the accused-respondents and therefore, under these circumstances, an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Public Prosecutor for cancellation of the bail, so granted to the accused.

7. It is settled proposition of law that whenever bail is granted to an accused for bailable offences, the same is liable to be cancelled in the eventuality of addition of non-bailable offence and under such circumstances, the accused is supposed to apply for a regular bail. However, in the instant case, no such course was ever adopted by the accused persons. The Public Prosecutor was right in submitting an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of the accused-respondents.

8. The law in this regard is well settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Rajasthan, while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1290/2012, on 14.06.2012, wherein it has been held as under:-

“In view of the aforesa