ORDER : The subject crime in this case is Crime No.419 of 2019 of the Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur, which was initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of the IPC on the basis of the FI Statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 11.05.2019 at about 3.54 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident happened on 10.02.2019 and the petitioner thereby has been arrayed as the sole accused in the said crime for the aforesaid offences. 2. The allegations in the said FIS given by the lady defacto complainant is that the petitioner, aged 42 years is the immediate neighbour of the lady defacto complainant, aged 3o years having four children. The petitioner is also a married person living with his family and he used to threaten her that she should marry him and he had animosity against her for her refusal to marry him. On 10.02.2019 at about 7.45 a.m. she had barged into her house, caught hold of her hand, pulled her and outraged her modesty and thus committed the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested and reamanded in the aforesaid crime on 12.05.2019. He was under detention for about four days and thereafter he was released on regular bail as per order dated 14.05.2019 rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam in the aforesaid crime. Thereafter, it appears that the lady defacto complainant has given an additional statement on 18.06.2019 under Section 161 Cr.P.C to the Police wherein she has stated that the petitioner had raped her on 04.03.2019 after 7 p.m in the motor shed situated near her house whereupon, the Police has submitted Annexure A2 additional report dated 18.06.2019 before the learned Magistrate seeking permission of the said court to arrest the petitioner for the newly added offence as per Section 376 of the IPC based on the said additional statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 18.06.2019. The Police has sought such permission as per Annexure 2 as the petitioner was already granted regular bail by the Magistrate in relation to the aforesaid crime. The Police has sought such permission as per Annexure 2 as the petitioner was already granted regular bail by the Magistrate in relation to the aforesaid crime. The learned Magistrate has now passed Annexure A3 order dated 11.07.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.2714 of 2019 in Crime No.419 of 2019 of the Peramangalam Police Station whereby, it has been held that the said plea of the prosecution could be treated as one under Section 437(5) of the Cr.P.C and has ordered that though the bail earlier granted to the petitioner for the earlier offences need not be cancelled, the Police will be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and commit him to custody on adding the additional offence under Section 376 of the IPC based on the abovesaid additional statement given by the lady defacto complainant. 3. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that, the learned Magistrate is correct in holding in the impuned order that the said Court is having jurisdiction and competence under Section 437(5) of the Cr.P.C to consider the said plea of the prosecution for permission to arrest the accused where an additional serious offence has been subsequently included even though bail was earlier granted to the accused for the earlier included offences in the very same crime. But after hearing both sides, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the further view taken by the learned Magistrate that the present case is a fit case wherein such permission could be granted is absolutely perverse and unreasonable for the following reasons. 4. The lady defacto complainant had given the initial FI Statement in this Crime on 11.05.2019 which led to the registration of the said crime for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of the IPC therein the allegations pertain to an incident which happended on 10.02.2019 at 7.45 p.m. The said crime itself has been registered with long and unexplained delay in as much as the incident is alleged to have happened on 10.02.2019 whereas the FIS and the trial are lodged only on 11.05.2019. The petitioner was arrested and remanded and thereafter the learned Magistrate has passed order dated 14.05.2019 granting regular bail to the petitioner in the said crime. The petitioner was arrested and remanded and thereafter the learned Magistrate has passed order dated 14.05.2019 granting regular bail to the petitioner in the said crime. It is long thereafter, the lady defacto complainant has now filed the instant additional statement dated 18.06.2019 making an allegation that the petitioner had in fact raped her on 04.03.2019. The alleged incident of rape which is said to have happened on 04.03.2019 was very much within the knowledge of the lady when she had given the initial FIS on 11.05.2019 which was in respect of the incident happened on 10.02.2019. It really passes the understanding of any court of law as to why the lady defacto complainant has chosen to keep silent about the alleged incident of rape which happened on 04.03.2019 in her FI Statement given on 11.05.2019 in the very same crime. The very fact that the lady has conspicuously kept silent about the alleged incident of rape on 04.03.2019, while giving her FI Statement on 11.05.2019 would really speaks volumes about the credibility and believability of the version of the prosecution. It is stated in the additional statement dated 18.06.2019 that the abovesaid incident was observed by the father in law of the lady defacto complainant. Prima facie it appears that the aforesaid allegations are made by the lady defacto complainant only due to extraneous and ulterior considerations and the incidents could have happened not in the manner alleged by her. In many of the cases of this nature, it could be that the incident could have happened on the basis of consensual relationship between the parties and thereafter a new version is put up, explanation has to be given to the family members about the conduct of the parties. This Court would not detain its attention in any manner on such aspects and those are matters which should really require the close scrutiny and attention of the investigating officer. This Court would not detain its attention in any manner on such aspects and those are matters which should really require the close scrutiny and attention of the investigating officer. The investigating officer should also bear in mind that the duty of the investigating agency is not merely to charge sheet an accused at any cost if he is arrayed as an accused in the FIR and on the other hand it is well settled that the solemn duty of the investigating agency is to ensure that the unvarnished truth of the matter is ferreted out so that innocent persons are not falsely framed in a case and so that guilty persons are booked after observing the due process of of law. Suffice to say that in a case like this, the learned Magistrate has exercised discretion in an extremely perverse and unreasonable manner by granting permission to the Police to arrest the petitioner for the additionally added offences even though he had earlier granted regular bail. In the initial Crime itself prima facie it appears that there is long and unexplained delay in as much as the incident therein is said to have happened on 10.02.2019 and the FIS was lodged as late as on 11.05.2019. The petitioner has already suffered detention in that case for 3 or 4 days and he was later released on regular bail. In a case like this, the learned Magistrate has committed a great illegality in granting permission to the Police to arrest the petitioner in relation to the aforesaid newly added offence under Section 376 IPC. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate stand rescinded and the permission granted to the Police to arrest the petitioner and detained him to custody in relation to the newly added offence of rape under Section 376 in the instant crime will stand revoked and set aside. Hence it is ordered and declared that the petitioner will be entitled to enjoy the bail granted to him by the learned Magistrate earlier in the very same crime. 6. Hence it is ordered and declared that the petitioner will be entitled to enjoy the bail granted to him by the learned Magistrate earlier in the very same crime. 6. Before parting with this case, it has to be made clear that in a case like this the petitioner should have actually filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking interdiction of the impunged Annexure A3 order dated 11.07.2019 rendered by the learned Magistrate whereby permission has been granted to the Police to arrest the petitioner for the newly added offence in the crime in which he has already been granted bail instead of filing an anticipatory bail application. However, without insisting on such technicality, this Court has passed the aforesaid directions in exercise of the substantive powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. With these observations and directions, the above application stands disposed of.