IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of Case Criminal Misc. Application No. 577 of 2008 Date of decision: 10th September, 2008 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) ____________________________ Not approved for reporting Date: 10.09.2008 Initials of Judge Note: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. App. No. 577 of 2008 Pradeep Kumar Chaudhari. …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. …… Respondents Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for respondent no. 1. None for respondent no. 2 Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for respondent no. 1. None for respondent no. 2 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding setting aside the condition stipulated for granting bail to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in his bail order dated 03.7.2008 in case crime no. 203/2007 related to Sections 420 & 506 IPC, P.S. Raiwala, District-Dehradun, of ‘paying rupees one lac five thousand to the first informant’. 3. The learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent no. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable. He further stated that the petitioner should have either filed a revision against the impugned order for quashing of the above condition stipulated in the bail order of the petitioner or, seek modification in accordance with law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this preliminary issue. A similar controversy has been resolved by the hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Om Prakash & Others Vs. State of U.P, 1983 ALJ, P-1370 wherein it is held that: “2. The criminal procedure code 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 Ss. 438 & 439 Cri. P.C. 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. S. 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. S. 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 S. 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 by-pass 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 by-pass the normal forums completely and come under S. 482 Cr.P.C. instead. The applicants seem to have been conscious of the position and it seems that with such consciousness it is being averred in Para 7 of the application that the applicant had no alternative remedy except to seek exercise of inherent powers under S. 482 Cr.P.C. That, however, is not correct position. He has other alternative remedy. In the circumstances I reject the application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. 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.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge, if the order would have been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petition would not have been maintainable in view of the above dictum of the hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The proposition of law laid down by the hon’ble Allahabad High Court would also be applicable in this case where the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a condition in the bail order of the petitioner. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is nit tenable. 6. Since, the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the hon’ble Allahabad High Court, it is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, as the petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate court. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 10.09.2008 V.K.