Pradip Ram (supra) now sets the controversy at rest. They would point out that in fact, in such a fact situation where some aggravated offences are invoked at later point of time after grant of bail, a relief of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required and only a permission to arrest the accused who has been granted bail is contemplated. The learned advocate would pertinently point out the fact that earlier decision in the case of Hamida Vs. Rashid ; (2008) 1 SCC 474 , has been referred to wherein it has been specifically observed that after addition of serious non-cognizable offences, the accused who has been granted bail is required to surrender and again apply for bail under the newly added offences. They would therefore submit that though there could be some error in articulating the prayer in the application whereby bail was sought to be cancelled, the procedure being hand maid of justice, the impugned order can be read to mean that what was asked before the learned Judge and what was actually granted was merely a permission to arrest the petitioners.
