Ram Laxman Patel and 3 Ors. vs State of U.P. and Another

Het Singh Yadav, J.—The applicants have moved this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (in short the Code) invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer that the bail application proposed to be moved by the applicant in the court below in Case Crime No.---344 of 2013 under Sections--324, 325, 323, 352, 506, 308 I.P.C. Police Station--Nawabganj, District--Allahabad be ordered to be considered expeditiously, if possible on the same day.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

The inherent power of this Court u/s 482 of the Code is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in Section itself and to be exercised:-

to give effect to an order under the Code;

to prevent abuse of the process of Court; and

to otherwise secure ends of justice.

In the case in hand, the applicants said to have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In S.E. Investment Ltd. Vs. Purnendu Shekharmal Jain and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2012 the apex court held that High Court cannot give direction regarding the manner in which the bail application should be considered by lower court. In Savitri Goenka Vs. Kusum Lata Damant and Others, , the apex court observed that the practice of converting application filed u/s 482 of the Code to one for bail in terms of Sections 438 and 439 of the Code is not proper. Otherwise also, the application is not with in the scope and ambit of inherent power of this Court u/s 482 of the Code as laid down above. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legal procedure.

In view of the above proposition of law, the application is dismissed at the threshold.