Om Prakash and Others vs State of U.P.

M. Wahajuddin, J.—It would appear that the applicants have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Etah, vide order dated. 29-6-1982 in Crime No. 66 of 1982 P.S. Nidhaull Kallan, District Etah under Sections 147 - 149 IPC. The bail was granted observing that the remand order dated 21-6-1982 shows that case diary was not produced before the Magistrate at the time of remand and the detention thus has become illegal. The Sessions Judge, however, directed that they are admitted to bail till the time of their commitment to the Court of Session only and shall be taken into custody at the time of their commitment. The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that such a condition should not have been imposed. Reliance has been placed upon the cases reported in Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P., . Considering the view that I am going to take, it is needless to refer to these rulings as they relate to the merits of the orders.

The Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down complete exhaustive provisions on the matters of bail and starting from the lowest Court a party can apply for bail to the highest Court including High Court under the provisions of Sections 438 and 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. When there is a forum and remedy provided it will be in accordance with the process of law to resort to that forum and remedy. Section 439(1)(b) provides for modification of any conditions etc. in the bail order. As that section refers to exercise of powers by High Court as well as Sessions Judge both, Section 439(1)(b) refers to modification of conditions in the bail order by the Magistrate obviously because a Sessions Judge cannot modify any order of Sessions Judge having concurrent powers, but this does not mean that High Court in its bail jurisdiction cannot modify any condition on the analogy of Section 439(1)(b). Apart from that there is also another remedy by way of revision against the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail but only for a limited period when it is a final order in that matter. Thus, there are two other remedies open to the applicants in other forums and it will be abusing the process of law if the applicants are allowed to bypass those forums and the normal procedure and process and come forward seeking exercise of inherent powers. If such tendencies are encouraged people may feel tempted to bypass the normal forums completely and come u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure instead. The applicants seem to have been conscious of the position and it seems that with such consciousness it is being averred in paragraph 7 of the application that the applicant had no alternative remedy except to seek exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. That, however, is not correct position. He has other alternative remedy. In the circumstances I reject the application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure summarily, not on merits but on the ground of non-maintainability and the applicants are at liberty to seek their remedy in the proper forum.