(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi in C.C. No.181 of 2009 dated 28.11.2013 in directing the Respondent to conduct further investigation.)

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the Respondent.

2. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the proceeding in C.C. No.181 of 2009 dated 28.11.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

3. Initially a case has been registered in Crime No.181 of 2009 against the Petitioners. The case of the prosecution is that Selvam @ Palani Selvam was kidnapped and detained illegally by the Petitioner and on a particular day the said Selvam has detained in a lodge. In order to escape from the Petitioner, the said Selvam jumped from the upstairs of the lodge and sustained multiple injuries. The father of the said Selvam was arrayed as PW1. The father of the victim was also examined. At that time, the learned Magistrate has discussed the case reported in Bagavath Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, 1985 (2) SCC 537; and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, 2013 (5) SCC 762. The learned Judge though it fit (to order) further investigation and ordered so. Aggrieved by which, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would fairly conceded that in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, 2013 (5) SCC 762, the Supreme Court has doubted the finding in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and others, 2009 (3) SCC (Crl.) 1051.

5. Though in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and others, 2009 (3) SCC (Crl.) 1051, the Supreme Court has stated that the Judicial Magistrate has no power to order further investigation and the decision in Bagvath Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, 1985 (2) SCC 537, the Supreme Court doubting the correctness has found that the Judicial Magistrate has power to order further investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondent is also insisting upon the Petitioners to obtain such a Anticipatory Bail. The learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in Dhivan v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore District, 2010 (2) MWN (Cr.) 5 : 2010 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 35, where a similar question has been raised, whether the Police has got power to re-arrest the Petitioner when they are enjoying the benefit of Order of Bail already obtained. After analysing various case laws, this Court is of the view that simply because a penal provision is added in the case. [in respect of a serious non-bailable offence, the bail granted earlier shall not automatically stand cancell

ed.] Therefore, it is made clear that there is no provision to re-arrest the Petitioners, who are enjoying the bail and it is for the Respondent to act as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate for further investigation. 7. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.