When Additional Offence Is Added In FIR, Police Has To Obtain Order To Arrest From Court Which Gave Bail: Punjab & Haryana HC Reiterates

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that in case an offence is added in the FIR where the accused is already on bail then the police authorities can arrest only after obtaining an order from the Court which had granted the bail.

In a rape case where Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376 (2)(n) was added later, Justice Namit Kumar asked the police authorities to comply with the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and another (2019). 

According to Pradeep Ram, in a case where after granting 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 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".

The High Court was hearing a plea under Section 528 of BNSS for directing the respondents to not to take any coercive steps against the accused-petitioner  in criminal proceedings emanating out of FIR registered under Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.) of the BNS. 

Counsel for the petitioner Samay Sandhawalia argued that ad interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner and in pursuance thereto the petitioner has joined the investigation.

However, thereafter, he has been issued notice under Section 35(3) BNSS whereby he has been called to the police station and in the said notice it has been stated that offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 376(2)(n) IPC have been added, he said.

Furthermore, the counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner has visited the police station and has delivered a copy of the judgment given in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and another,  however, the petitioner is apprehending arrest under the added Sections, whereas the State are duty-bound to obtain orders from this Court.

 Considering the submissions, the Court directed the police authorities to comply with the directions contained in the Pradeep Ram's case, and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the same.

Mr. Samay Singh Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

 XXXX v. XXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 32