ORDER : (V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.) : 1. This criminal petition under section 482 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioner/accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.270 of 2023 of Indrapalem Police Station of Kakinada District for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(c), 420, 506, 306 read with 116 of the IPC. 2. Heard arguments of Sri B.V.Rama Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: A lady aged 22 years lodged written information dated 19.11.2023 upon which, a FIR.No.270 of 2023 was registered for the offences under sections 417, 420 and 306 read with 116 of the IPC. The allegations do show that since the year 2021, she was learning tailoring work and during that phase, acquaintance developed between her and the accused. The accused used to befriend her and promised to marry her and this love continued for about 3 years. It is alleged that the accused wanted to do business in iron scrapping and required money and in that regard, he obtained Rs.5 lakhs cash and 8 sovereigns of gold from the victim lady. Sometime thereafter, when she demanded to marry her, he refused to marry her and she informed to his father and that was not fruitful. On 19.11.2023 she intended to lodge a police case but felt that her reputation may get damaged and she thought of committing suicide and then she swallowed her own silver ring. That was noticed by her father and she was admitted in the hospital and she survived. Then she lodged the written information with police. Investigation commenced and 10 witnesses were examined. The accused was arrested on 31.01.2024 and was produced before learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada seeking his remand for 15 days to complete the investigation. The learned Magistrate entertained the prayer and considered the rival submissions and took the view that the material on record did not make out a case for section 306 read with 116 IPC. What remained was the offences under sections 417 and 420 IPC and there was compliance of Section 41A CrPC notice. It was in such circumstances, it directed the release of the accused on his personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with a direction to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 41A CrPC notice. What remained was the offences under sections 417 and 420 IPC and there was compliance of Section 41A CrPC notice. It was in such circumstances, it directed the release of the accused on his personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with a direction to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 41A CrPC notice. Thereafter, he made his appearance before the court and was directed to appear on receipt of summons and such order was made on 19.03.2024. This is the first phase of the case. 4. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer thought it fit to have the statement of the victim lady recorded under section 164 CrPC by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, necessary applications were filed. On 23.03.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class – cum – VI Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Divison) Court, Kakinada recorded the victim’s statement under section 164 CrPC. Subsequently, the investigating officer felt that the facts that were gathered so far including the statement of the victim lady recorded by the learned Magistrate contained material that the accused under the promise of marriage had sexual intercourse on multiple occasions with the victim lady and failed to marry and they do attract the offence of rape and therefore additional penal provisions were added and they are sections 376(2)(n), 354-C, 506 IPC. 5. Then, the prosecution filed a petition under section 437(5) CrPC seeking cancellation of bail and that was registered as Crl.M.P.No.3140 of 2024. Notice was served on the accused. He put in his attendance and filed a counter opposing the prayer made in the petition. After due hearing and enquiry, by an order dated 27.08.2024, the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada allowed the prayer of the prosecution and considered the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and passed the following order. “On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, it is clear that when further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added, the court can direct the accused to be taken into custody after cancellation of his bail. In the present case on hand, the prosecution has altered the section of law basing on the statement of the victim, and the section 376 (2)(n) of IPC is triable by the Hon'ble Sessions Court. The accused has not surrendered or applied for bail for newly added offences. In the present case on hand, the prosecution has altered the section of law basing on the statement of the victim, and the section 376 (2)(n) of IPC is triable by the Hon'ble Sessions Court. The accused has not surrendered or applied for bail for newly added offences. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the accused has to be arrested for the offences under section 376 (2) (n), 354 C and 506 of IPC and the Inspector of Police, Kakinada Rural Circle, is permitted to arrest the accused for the said offences. In the result, this petition is allowed, the Inspector of Police, Kakinada Rural Circle is permitted to arrest the accused for the offences under sections 376 (2) (n) and 354 C, 506 of IPC.” 6. It is thereafter, the accused has come up with this petition with the prayer which reads as mentioned below” “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.270 of 2023 of Indrapalem Police Station of Kakinada District, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 7. Learned counsel for petitioner urges that this has never been the case of the prosecution that this petitioner either threatened the witnesses or tampered with the evidence or interfered with the investigation. That there is collusion between the victim lady and local political parties and that resulted in addition of penal provisions. The allegations do not indicate any prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner is permanent resident of Atchutapuratrayam Village and would cooperate with the police for all purposes of investigation and will always be available for that purpose. That the contentions raised by the petitioner were not properly considered by the court below. It is for these reasons, he seeks pre arrest bail. 8. Learned APP representing the State stoutly objected stating that the petition is not maintainable either on facts or law and the reasoned order of the learned Magistrate was never challenged by recourse of any appropriate remedy and without doing so, the petitioner is not entitled for seeking bail in anticipation and requested the court to dismiss the petition. 9. 8. Learned APP representing the State stoutly objected stating that the petition is not maintainable either on facts or law and the reasoned order of the learned Magistrate was never challenged by recourse of any appropriate remedy and without doing so, the petitioner is not entitled for seeking bail in anticipation and requested the court to dismiss the petition. 9. In the light of the facts narrated above and the rival submissions the following points fall for consideration: 1. In a criminal case where an accused has been arrested and bailed out for certain non bailable offences and was subsequently found to have been involved with more serious offences in the same case whether he is entitled to apply for anticipatory bail? 2. Whether anticipatory bail application can be maintained without assailing the order of the court directing the arrest of accused? POINT Nos.1 and 2: - 10. As could be noticed from the record, by the time the petitioner was arrested on 31.01.2024, there were no allegations of sexual atrocity and he was produced before the learned Magistrate for the offences under sections 417, 420 and 306 read with 116 IPC. Learned Magistrate considered the material on record and duly released him on bail by obtaining a personal bond. Investigation continued and the victim lady disclosed how she was ravished on multiple occasions under the guise of promise of marriage. Whether those allegations are true and believable or whether they are false allegations are matters for investigation and matters for trial. The fact remains now that the investigating officer found from the material on record that for the facts offences under sections 376(2)(n), 354 C and 506 IPC do attract. What should happen under law in such circumstances was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Hamida V. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 . The principles laid down therein and other rulings were elaborately considered by the Hon’ble supreme court of India in Pradeep Ram V. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 17 SCC 356. Their Lordships stated that where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non bailable offences are added, the following principles apply. 1. 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. 2. Their Lordships stated that where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non bailable offences are added, the following principles apply. 1. 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. 2. The investigating agency can seek order from the court under section 437(5) or 439(2) of the CrPC for arrest of the accused and his custody. 3. The court, in exercise of power under section 437(5) and 439(2) of the CrPC, can direct for taking into custody, the accused who was already granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The court in exercise of power under section 437(5) as well as 439(2) CrPC can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him into custody on addition of non bailable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancellation of earlier bail. 4. In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offense or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences, it needs to obtain order to arrest the accused from the court which had granted bail. 11. In the present case, Crl.M.P.No.3140 of 2024 was filed by the prosecution under section 437(5) CrPC with the following prayer: “Petitioner/police humbly prays the Hon’ble court may be pleased to cancel the self-bond/ bail which was executed by the respondent/accused and permit to arrest the accused for the purpose of remand of the accused for judicial custody since he is involved in offence of rape which is grave in nature, else great prejudice will be caused to the de facto complaint in this case.” After due hearing on both sides by an order dated 27.08.2024, the learned Magistrate stated that section 376(2)(n) of IPC is triable exclusively by the Hon’ble Court of sessions and that the accused despite adding the new penal provisions did not choose to surrender and did not choose to apply for bail for the newly added penal provisions. In view of those circumstances, it directed the accused to be arrested for the offences under sections 376(2)(n), 354-C and 506 IPC. In view of those circumstances, it directed the accused to be arrested for the offences under sections 376(2)(n), 354-C and 506 IPC. Thus, it is at the direction of the court, the prosecution intended to arrest the accused. Thus, there is warrant/ justification for the police to arrest. The ratio of the Pradeep Ram’s case permitted several alternatives and the accused did not pursue any of those alternatives. The offences alleged against him are very grave. In such circumstances, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted. 12. Seeing from the facts of the case it has to be stated that the accused is a person who was released on regular bail for some of the penal provisions and he now seeks anticipatory bail for the newly added penal provisions. It is difficult to comprehend that in the same crime, one could avail a regular bail in part and anticipatory bail in part. At any rate taking a case as a case when once the accused was arrested in the case, his right to seek pre arrest bail ceases. 13. The contents of the present petition and the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner have not addressed any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. Without challenging the order of the learned Magistrate by way of revision or other appropriate petition, the prayer of the petitioner for pre arrest bail is not maintainable. Hence all the points are answered against the petitioner. 14. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Respondent/ state is directed to proceed further in accordance with the directions given by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakinada in Crl.M.P.No.3140 of 2024 in Cr.No.270 of 2023 dated 27.08.2024.