ORDER : A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. 2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 12 in Crime No.105 of 2024 of Bukkapatnam Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, which was registered with the allegations of committing the offences under Sections 118(1), 3(5) of the BNS and the accused were bailed out. But, subsequently, charge sheet was presented by the Police for the offences under Sections 118(1), 118(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS, citing the reason that the investigation disclosed the offence in terms of Section 118(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS. 3. Petitioners claimed that in view of adding of Section 118(2) of the BNS, they are afraid of arrest. Hence, the petitioners pray for a direction to release them on Bail, in the event of their arrest. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Point for determination: Whether the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 12 are entitled for the relief of pre-arrest bail in respect of Crime No.105 of 2024 of Bukkapatnam Police Station, in terms of Section 482 of BNSS in respect of newly added Section viz. 118(2) of B.N.S. If so, on what conditions? Point: 6. Special circumstance in this case is that the accused are already bailed out, but subsequently new offences are added. Then, pertinent questions are: what is the recourse open? whether the re-arrest of accused is permissible ignoring the earlier bail order? and whether the petitioners / accused, who are already on bail, can maintain another application for bail including an application for pre-arrest / anticipatory bail? Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners: 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the petitioners are released on bail, in view of adding of a new Section i.e. 118(2) of BNS, there is every likelihood of arrest. Petitioners did not violate any conditions of bail. Hence, the petitioners deserve grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in respect of newly added Section 118(2) of BNS and that they are ready to furnish sureties that may be ordered. Arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: 8. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor formerly opposed the application stating that the victim sustained grievous injuries. Hence, Section 118(2) of the BNS is added and that the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. Arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: 8. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor formerly opposed the application stating that the victim sustained grievous injuries. Hence, Section 118(2) of the BNS is added and that the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. Analysis, discussion and conclusions: 9. While addressing the observations in Syed Inayath Ullah vs. The State of Telangana , 2022 SCC OnLine TS 337: (2022) 2 ALT (Cri) 37 , made by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana that, when once the Police concerned followed the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar , [ (2014) 8 SCC 273 ] for arrest of accused, subsequently, the Police shall obtain the permission of the concerned Court, and arrest cannot be done at the whims and fancies of the Police, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the situation in the case referred is where Police initially resorted to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and subsequently trying to arrest but, the context in the present case before this Court is different. Therefore, protection of the Court is necessary in this case as threat of arrest is hanging on the head of the petitioners herein. The petitioners/ accused herein are ready to furnish fresh bail bonds in respect of the newly added section(s). 10. While taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the point like one involved in the present case was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (i) In a case between Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Another , [ (2019) 17 SCC 326 ] , observations relevant and applicable to the present context are made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para Nos.11 to 31 and in para No.31, the conclusions are drawn, which are as follows: 31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:- 31.1. The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested. 31.2. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:- 31.1. The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested. 31.2. The investigating agency can seek order from the Court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of CrPC for arrest of the accused and his custody. 31.3. The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of CrPC, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail. 31.4. In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail. (ii). Further, in a case between Ms.X vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another , 2023 3 Supreme 92 ; 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 243 arising out of Criminal Appeals Nos.822-823 of 2023 decided on 17.03.2023, while referring to Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (supra) case, Hon’ble Apex Court considered a situation of initial bail order for the offences under Sections 354, 354-B and 506 of the IPC and subsequently adding Section 376 of IPC. In this, the situation was that the bail was granted for the offences under Section 354, 354-B and 506 of the IPC and application for cancellation of bail was moved on the ground of adding of additional Section 376 IPC and non compliances of Section 41-A Notice, etc. The Application filed for cancellation of bail was allowed by the concerned Court. Then an application was moved by the accused seeking anticipatory bail before the sessions Court and it was rejected. The Application filed for cancellation of bail was allowed by the concerned Court. Then an application was moved by the accused seeking anticipatory bail before the sessions Court and it was rejected. Subsequently the accused moved the Hon’ble High Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay allowed the application, where upon the aggrieved prosecutrix approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. In that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court interfered with the order of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on the grounds Bombay High Court ignored: (a) nature and gravity of the offence; (b) the financial status and position of the accused and the prosecutrix; (c) an opportunity of hearing to the prosecutrix in the pre- arrest bail application. 11. The objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the application for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable, on the ground of accused being already on bail for some sections in the same Crime Number found not convincing, as threat of arrest in respect of newly added section is staring against the petitioners / accused. It is not a case of prosecution that they have moved any application for cancellation of bail and that they are not going to arrest the petitioners. Newly added Sections are non-bailable. 12. Further, it is pertinent to note in the case of Ms.X vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) entertaining application of pre-arrest bail in respect of newly added offences was not found fault by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The interference of the Hon’ble Apex Court was on the ground of not providing opportunity to the prosecutrix and not considering the gravity of the case which suggest that the application for pre-arrest bail is maintainable. Therefore, objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is not considered. 13. It is relevant to note that certain parameters are referred in para 9 of the judgment for granting of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another , [ (2010) 14 SCC 496 ] . Therefore, objection of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is not considered. 13. It is relevant to note that certain parameters are referred in para 9 of the judgment for granting of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another , [ (2010) 14 SCC 496 ] . They are as follows: “(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 14. In this case, it is relevant to note the following aspects: (i). The investigation is already completed and charge sheet also ready. (ii). As per the copy of the charge sheet enclosed, LW.1 sustained bleeding injury on head right hand little finger, whereas LW.3 sustained swelling injuries on right thigh and left elbow. LW.2 did not receive any injuries. (iii) It appears that the informant and his brother have disputes and made compliant against with each other. (iv) The prosecution did not move any application for cancellation of bail etc., so far. But, petitioners approached this Court offering to furnish security and to comply the conditions that may be imposed. (v) Bail was granted in respect of offence under Section 118(1) of BNS, But, now the Section 118(2) of BNS being added, on the ground LW.3 received grievous injuries. (vi) Wound Certificate not produced. (vii) There is no allegation of petitioners/accused either violating bail conditions or interfering with investigation process. (viii) Possibility of arrest of petitioners is clear. 15. Upon considering the legal position addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases cited above vide Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Another ( supra) , Ms.X vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (supra) and also the factual scenario in this case, balancing the interest of both sides following conclusions are drawn: 1) The investigation authority merely on addition of offences shall not proceed to arrest. But, it need to obtain an order of arrest from the concerned Court. 2) The accused can apply for bail for newly added sections which includes the application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the concerned Court. 3) The present application filed for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS is maintainable; 4) On facts the petitioners/accused herein are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of newly added Section 118(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. 16. In the result , the Criminal Petition is allowed as follows: 1) Petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned S.H.O. within ‘15’ days, on such appearance or in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail in respect of Crime No.105 of 2024 of Bukkapatnam Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, for the offence under Section 118(2) r/w. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the condition of Petitioners/Accused executing additional bail bonds for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the S.H.O., Bukkapatnam Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District. 2) The Petitioners and their sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and keep the Police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. 3) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and they shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc. 4) The petitioners shall not leave India, without permission of the concerned Court.