JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- It is a unique case of high handedness on the part of the police to arrest and lodge in jail an infirm and old lady of 70 years who was granted bail by the learned Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Manjit Kaur, wife of Charanjit Singh, resident of House No. 128, Aman Nagar, Jalandhar, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364 and 365, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 217, dated 30.12.2012, registered at Police Station, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Surinder Kumar, father of Inderjit Kaur, informed the police that on 6.12.2012, at 9.30 a.m., his daughters, namely, Neetu Singh and Inderjit Kaur, were present at the house. Inderjit Kaur left the house, but did not come back till 30.12.2012, the day on which the matter was reported to the police. He (complainant) expressed suspicion on Amrik Singh, son of Gulzar Singh, resident of Raipur Rasool. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 365, IPC. During investigation, Manjit Kaur, who is mother-in-law of Amrik Singh, was arrested on 17.1.2013 and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide his detailed order dated 23.1.2013 (Annexure P-8). 4. On 8.3.2013, the complainant, Surinder Kumar, suffered a supplementary statement in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., to the effect that Inderjit Kaur was abducted by Amrik Singh and his co-accused with an intention to kill her, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, was added in the FIR and the petitioner, Manjit Kaur was re-arrested on 15.6.2013. 5. Learned counsel contends that once the petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction in this very case, and if some new offence was added, in that eventuality, the police could have arrested the petitioner only after obtaining permission from the Court. He further submits that it was brought to the notice of the investigating officer, SI Pritam Singh of Police Station, Maqsudan, Police District Jalandhar (Rural), that the alleged detenue was alive and she had left her house with her own free will. He further submits that it was brought to the notice of the investigating officer, SI Pritam Singh of Police Station, Maqsudan, Police District Jalandhar (Rural), that the alleged detenue was alive and she had left her house with her own free will. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 6.12.2012, Inderjit Kaur had given a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), that she had left her house with her own free will and no one had abducted her. On 10.12.2012, yet another representation was made by Inderjit Kaur, but no action was taken on the said representations. He further submits that Inderjit Kaur had filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., before this Court seeking protection to her life and liberty, but the same was withdrawn on 21.12.2012 with permission to pursue her representations presented to the higher police officers. He further submits that the alleged detenue is still present before this Court, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the ingredients of Section 364, IPC, were attracted in the present case. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner for second time for the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, is illegal. 6. Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the petitioner was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 365, IPC, and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated 23.1.2013. He further submits that the complainant made a supplementary statement in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., disclosing that Inderjit Kaur was seen in the company of the petitioner and her co-accused and she (Inderjit Kaur) might have been killed. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, was added and the petitioner was re-arrested. However, he submits that no permission from the Court was sought before her arrest for second time. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that Inderjit Kaur was abducted with the intention to kill her. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. 9. The alleged detenue, Inderjit kaur, is present in the Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. 9. The alleged detenue, Inderjit kaur, is present in the Court. Her statement has been recorded separately by this Court wherein she has specifically stated that on 6.12.2012 she had left the house of her father with her own free will; no one induced or pressurized her to leave the house of her father; she went to Shimla and still residing there; and that no one had attempted to kill her during the said period. 10. It is apposite to mention here that the case was taken up at the first call at about 11.00 a.m. and the parents of Inderjit Kaur along with their counsel, Mr. Mohd Yousaf, appeared before this Court and prayed that they be permitted to talk to Inderjit Kaur. At the asking of the Court, Inderjit Kaur sat with her parents in the Court room on the chairs meant for litigants and general public and had conversation for about 1½ hours and now the case has been taken up in the post-lunch session and thereafter the statement of Inderjit Kaur was recorded in the presence of her parents and their counsel Mr. Mohd Yousaf. 11. The petitioner, who is concededly aged about 70 years, was granted bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. It appears that to put pressure on the petitioner and her co-accused, the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC, was added later on with a mala fide intention. When Inderjit Kaur had submitted various representations to the police officers and she even filed a petition before this Court seeking protection to her life and liberty, therefore, it did not lie in the mouth of the investigating officer to say that the alleged detenue, Inderjit Kaur, was abducted by the accused with an intention to kill her. The investigating officer had gone so callous that he re-arrested the old lady of 70 years, in spite of the grant of bail by the court, by adding the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC. 12. The investigating officer had gone so callous that he re-arrested the old lady of 70 years, in spite of the grant of bail by the court, by adding the offence punishable under Section 364, IPC. 12. In Gheesa and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 WLN UC 457, the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the question that when an accused person has been released on bail, in what circumstances, can he be re-arrested, and observed as under: “ ……The provisions for this purpose are Section 437(5) and Section 439(5) Cr.P.C. Once, a person has been directed to be released on bail either by a Magistrate or a Court of Session or by this Court, then only the Court which has directed that the accused person should be released on bail, can order that the accused person should be re-arrested and sent to custody. There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Police arresting the accused person after being released on bail merely because, the facts after investigation disclose some other offences, which were not made out at the time the accused person was released on bail. If such a power is to be given to the Police, then it will be always possible for the Police to add an offence say under Section 307, IPC and arrest a person who has been released on bail for the offences under Sections 331, 333 or 325, IPC etc. Liberty of an individual cannot be made to depend upon some tricks which the Police can play in the matter of adding offences to a particular set of facts and circumstances. It is the court alone, which can deal with the matter of cancellation of bail after it has been granted by it.” 13. In Motilal and others v. T he State of Raiasthan, 1987 RCC 347, it has been categorically held that when a person has been arrested on account of allegations made in the FIR and released on bail, the position will not change simply by adding a new section of non-bailable offence nor the Police can re-arrest him. 14. In Jagbir Singh v. State and another, 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 289, it has been held that an accused could not be arrested without taking prior permission of the Court, after he had been allowed anticipatory bail and new offence added in the FIR. 15. 14. In Jagbir Singh v. State and another, 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 289, it has been held that an accused could not be arrested without taking prior permission of the Court, after he had been allowed anticipatory bail and new offence added in the FIR. 15. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the ratio of the judgments cited in the preceding paras, this case requires thorough probe. This Court is of the considered opinion that a case should be registered against the erring police officers involved in this case as also the persons who have made false statement before the police for implicating the petitioner and her co-accused in a false and baseless case. It is expected that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), shall order for registration of a case under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code for falsely implicating the innocent persons and illegal re-arrest of the petitioner. 16. Adjourned to 19.09.2013, for awaiting the report from the concerned police officer. 17. In the meantime, the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Manjit Kaur, wife of Charanjit Singh, resident of House No. 128, Aman Nagar, Jalandhar, is allowed. She is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the investigation/trial of the present case, subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. 18. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order and a copy of the statement of Inderjit Kaur of even date to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), Jalandhar, for compliance at the earliest by any convenient mode. --------0.B.S.0------------