Judgment : The revision petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.321/2007 of Erattupetta Police Station, challenges the Order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kottayam allowing CMP 799/2008 filed by the investigating officer for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Crime No.321/2007 of Erattupetta Police Station was initially registered at the instance of the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the revision petitioner/first accused. Initially, the aforesaid crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 450, 363, 354 and 395 IPC against the revision petitioner and others. During the course of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta deleted Sections 450, 363 and 395 IPC, but added Sections 498(A), 354 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed CMP No. 2469/2007 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam seeking anticipatory bail and as per order dated 11.2007, the Sessions Court granted bail for a period of one month before the expiry of which he was directed to appear before the Magistrate and seek regular bail. Thereafter the revision petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and obtained regular bail for the aforementioned offences. Alleging that the Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta was not conducting the investigation properly and that his investigation was partisan, the de facto complainant filed W.P.(C).29856/2007 before this Court seeking a direction for investigation by another police officer. On 10.1.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam to entrust the investigation to another police officer. Thereafter the investigation was entrusted with the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam East Police Station. During the subsequent investigation by the Circle Inspector of Kottayam East Police Station, the offences which were deleted by the previous investigating officer were again incorporated rendering the case one involving graver offences. It was after the restoration of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 363, 354 and 94 IPC that the investigating officer moved the Sessions Court by filing CMP 799/2008 for cancellation of the bail. The said application was allowed by the Sessions Court, as per the impugned order dated 19.4.2008 after hearing both sides. 4. It was after the restoration of the offences punishable under Sections 450, 363, 354 and 94 IPC that the investigating officer moved the Sessions Court by filing CMP 799/2008 for cancellation of the bail. The said application was allowed by the Sessions Court, as per the impugned order dated 19.4.2008 after hearing both sides. 4. The learnedcounsel for the revision petitioner contended that merely because a grave offence has been subsequently incorporated after the accused was granted bail, that is not a ground disentitling the accused to the liberty granted by the court by releasing the accused on bail and that the bail already granted for the minor offences will be unaffected by the subsequent incorporation of the graver offence. 5. I cannot agree with the above submissions. When a minor offence is altered into an aggravated crime, that will disentitle the accused to the liberty of being released on bail granted to him earlier in relation to the minor offence. See Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT Delhi and another – (AIR 2001 SC 1444). But merely because a grave offence has been incorporated after the enlargement of the accused on bail at a time when the offence was a minor offence, that by itself cannot be a circumstance to cancel the bail since for cancellation of the bail, the conditions for doing so should be present. There is no case for the investigating officer that the revision petitioner, after he was enlarged on bail, had abused the liberty granted to him by the court or had influenced or intimidated the prosecution witness or had attempted to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution or had made himself scarce so as to give a reasonable suspicion that he had jumped bail and fled from justice. Bail granted to an accused person can be cancelled only if he has been guilty of breach of the bail conditions or if he has abused the liberty granted to him. (see Dolat Ram v/s. State of Haryana - 1995 SCC (Crl.)237) Hence the proper course for the investigating officer was not to seek cancellation of the bail, but instead, was to move the Court for a direction to the accused to again apply for bail after the incorporation of the graver offence. (see Dolat Ram v/s. State of Haryana - 1995 SCC (Crl.)237) Hence the proper course for the investigating officer was not to seek cancellation of the bail, but instead, was to move the Court for a direction to the accused to again apply for bail after the incorporation of the graver offence. Accordingly, the order dated 19.4.2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Kottayam is set aside and the petitioner is directed to move the appropriate court for regular bail for the above crime which now stands registered also for offences punishable under Sections 450, 363, 354 and 395 IPC. It shall be open to the investigating officer to have custodial interrogation of the petitioner now after the incorporation of the grave offences. Even if the Magistrate grants regular bail to the petitioner in the above crime now after the incorporation of the grave offences, the bail condition shall include one obliging the petitioner to make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation. In case the petitioner files the application for regular bail before the Magistrate concerned after giving advance notice to the public prosecutor, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed. But the grant of bail will be without prejudice to the right of the investigating officer to apply for police custody in case he is desirous of discerning any information by interrogating the petitioner.