JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. is directed against the order dated 26.8.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaman Distt. Bharatpur taking accused petitioner in custody pursuant to cognizance taken for offences under Sections 148, 323, 342 and 452 read with 149 IPC and against Salim and Rukmuddin for offence under Section 376/34 I.P.C. 2. The relevant facts are that a complaint came to be lodged by Smt. Arkum wife of Islamuddin on 3.7.2006 before the aforesaid court which was forwarded u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Jurhera for Investigation. The case of the complainant was that on the 30.6.2006 accused persons entered into her house armed with lathi, danda, guns and gave beatings to her husband and after tying him, Rukmuddin and Salim committed rape with her. She was threatened not to give information at the police station. It was also alleged that at the time of incident, all the villagers were present at the place of incident, but due to fear of the accused persons, nobody interfered. The police registered a case for offences under Sections 143, 323, 354, 342, 376 and 452 IPC but after investigation filed the challan for the offences under Sections 143, 323 and 342 IPC. The accused-petitioners were released on bail. The complainant filed a protest petition and on the protest petition the trial court took cognizance and the petitioners were taken into custody without passing any order of cancellation of their bail. The said order is under challenge in this petition. 3. His learned counsel has contended on the strength of Sukhpal v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (1) RLW 283 , Moti Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 RCC 347 and Vijendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 689 that the order of the learned trial court taking the accused-petitioner into custody without passing order of cancellation of bail already granted to him is not only illegal and unsustainable but also clearly amounts to abuse of the process of the law. Learned Public Prosecutor also could not defend the order impugned. 4. It may be stated at the outset that the facts as indicated above are not in dispute. The accused-petitioner has been taken into custody without passing any order of cancellation of bail already granted to him by the police. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also could not defend the order impugned. 4. It may be stated at the outset that the facts as indicated above are not in dispute. The accused-petitioner has been taken into custody without passing any order of cancellation of bail already granted to him by the police. 5. It has been held in the case of Sukhpal v. State of Raj. (supra) as under: "I am, therefore, of the opinion that the legal position is beyond doubt that once an accused is ordered to be released on bail under any of the Section of Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C. the police had no power to arrest him by merely adding another section which may be non-bailable. The police must seek an order from the Court for cancellation of bail granted to a person." It has been held in Moti Lal and ors. v. State of Raj. (supra) as under : "Once the person has been arrested on account of the allegations in the FIR, simply by adding a new section of non-bailable offence, it k does not change the position, nor does it permit the police to re-arrest him." It has been held in Vijendra Kumar v. State of Raj. (supra) as under : "Once an accused is released on bail in a particular case, then he cannot be arrested merely because another offence has been added to the list of the offences, which was graver than what was found earlier. A bail once granted can be cancelled under Section 439(2) and 437(5) Cr.P.C." It is well settled that the bail once granted to the accused cannot be cancelled except on the grounds laid down for cancellation of bail. 6. In this view of the matter, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set-aside. 7. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 26.8.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaman Distt. Bharatpur taking the accused-petitioners in custody Is set-aside and It is directed that petitioners Rukmuddin s/o Atru, Salim s/o Atru, Asim s/o Atru, Nasim s/o Atru and Sabbir s/o Rukmuddin shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond In the sum of Rs. Bharatpur taking the accused-petitioners in custody Is set-aside and It is directed that petitioners Rukmuddin s/o Atru, Salim s/o Atru, Asim s/o Atru, Nasim s/o Atru and Sabbir s/o Rukmuddin shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond In the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court undertaking to appear before the court concerned unless otherwise directed.Petition Allowed. *******