BRAJ LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard applicant Sri Braj Lal, Advocate, in person. and Sri Moeez Uddin, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 & 3. By this petition under section 482,Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks cancellation of bail orders dated 25.4.2018 & 24.3.2018 to opposite party no. 2 & 3 passed by the learned Special Judge,SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 362/2014, U/s 147,382,504,506 IPC and U/s 3(2)(V), SC/ST Act, S.T. No. 422/2018, Police Station Phoolpur, Allahabad.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 & 3 regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground that when specific provision is there under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail, the present petition under section 482,Cr.P.C. for that very purpose is not maintainable.

(3.) In reply, Sri Braj Lal, Advocate submits that inherent powers of the High Court under section 482,Cr.P.C. are very wide and the same can be exercised in order to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No doubt, the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482,C.P.C. is empowered enough to make orders in the nature as contended by the applicant but it is equally true and well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where specific remedy is provided by the statute. The inherent jurisdiction under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in section 482 itself.