58 08.09.2026 Ct. No. 10 Ashim IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Re: An application under Sections 528 read with Sections 438/442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. CRR 365 of 2026 In RE: The State of West Bengal ….. Petitioner Ld AAAG. Jagriti Mishra, Ld APP. Avrojyoti Das, Adv. Abhilash Mittal …. For the State 1. This is an application filed under Section 528 read with Sections 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the State. 2. Respondents herein are accused persons in G.R. Case No. 1192 of 2026 arising out of Samuktala P.S. Case No. 195 of 2026 dated 27/05/2026 under Sections 61(2)/314/318/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 along with added Sections 403/420/120B/34/409/411/413/414/463/467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 7/12/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; 2 3. Initially, the Opposite Parties herein were allowed bail. At that time the added and graver sections were there. Subsequently, certain other sections related to non-cognizable offences were added as an outcome of further investigation. 4. An application was made on 07th August, 2026 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar for issuance of warrant of arrest against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, who are on bail, in view of addition of graver offences and necessity of custodial detention. But this application was turned down in terms of the impugned Order dated 10th August, 2026. Accordingly, the instant application is filed, praying for among other for issuance of warrant arrest against Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, in connection with this case. 5. Mr. Mishra, the Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Avrojyoti Das, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision of Patna High Court being Sita Ram Singh VS. State of Bihar [2002(0) Supreme (Pat) 223] as well as Sumit vs State of U.P & Anr. [2026 AIR (SC) 905]. 6. Heard the Learned Counsels. 7. In Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2019) 17 SCC 326] while considering the issue whether in a 3 case where an accused has been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case, subsequently new offences are added, is it necessary that bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the accused in custody the Supreme Court of India held: “31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the 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) CrPC for arrest of the accused and his custody. 31.3 [Ed. : Para 31.3 corrected vide Official Letter dated 31-7-2020.] . The court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC, 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- bailable 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 needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the court which had granted the bail.” 4 8. This principal was reiterated in Sumit Vs. State of U.P & Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 186): “34. In such circumstances referred to above, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance whereafter the 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 the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested. (ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr. P.C. respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody. (iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr. P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) respectively 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 needs to obtain an order to 5 arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.” 9. In view of this clear provision, the instant application is disposed of and the State is given liberty to invoke the provision of Sections 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alternatively 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 since bail had been granted by the Learned Sessions Judge or may file appropriate application. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant application stands disposed of. 11. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 12. Server copy of the order, duly downloaded from the official website of the High Court, shall be acted upon. (Sugato Majumdar, J.)