Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003262025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/25/2025 Sange Chukla Son of Shri Pema Chukla, resident of Village Yorni, PO and PS Mechuka, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumnya Rina, H.Dirchi,Mukesh Prasad,S K Sharma Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 04.03.2025 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. Page No.# 3/4 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 Page No.# 4/4 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. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, as well as other aspects of the case, especially considering the fact that one anticipatory bail application is pending before this Court for the same petitioner arising out of the same FIR, and that the only reason for filing the present petition is the addition of two newly added sections, the present petition cannot be entertained at this stage. Further, the petitioner will have the opportunity to raise the issue before this Court while dealing with the earlier anticipatory bail application, numbered as AB Case No. 16/2025, which is already fixed on 07.03.2025. Accordingly, this petition is not maintainable, and the same stands dismissed. In terms of the above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant