^i HIGH COURT OF CHHArrXSeAWiATBilLASPUR CR.M.P. N0. 263/2008 SB : Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Siaarsaa, J. PBTITIOBBR Versus RBSPOBIDENTS Oundano @ Brindavan S/o. Bhacloo (d), Brij Sahu, s^ed about 72 years, r/o. ViU^se Denga Padar, P.S. Uaagpur, Distt. Ganjpur (Oriss^ Stete of ChJiattisgarfa, 'l'turough. Distt.M^istrate, Raipiu- {CXS} APPUCATIOB U/8. 482 OF THB CRJ.C. Present: Shri Syyed lintiyaz Au, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ^[ALORDER (Passed on 4th July, 2008) Tliis petition is directed agaiast the order dated 7.b.20US passed by tbe Special Judge, Kaipur ia Criminal Case No. 10/2008 wfaereby the application fited by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by iiaposmg tbllowing conditions : 1. uRPRT 1R ^e^t c& ^T^ 3(Nttft ^.^T. ffRT ^ Vi^ VtfhW cfr [3T|t'<"l WTP<T ?t^r cf®^t ^jITVTT | ?. ut*1l-1<1c;]'<( ^Sf V? (u)"1<il'!l1 ? B; t 3TRW tBt "tll'UlcKI 4 ycttcb anst f^r ^ ^it ri'HcAl ^rfSrtt cPTrtft uftA<11 (RIT uttii'iti<;i'; •fl srr'Wt c& wi wtoa ^i 2. 'Fhe order is challenged on the ground that the conditions imposed by the trial Court is not reasonable and actuaUy tbis is dcnial ofthe bail; 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. Order iinpugned perused. 3. lt is argued on behalf of the petitfoner that the petitioner is 72 years old. He was tbzmd in possession of contraband -Cianja at Kaipiu- ^^lESeS^^^^fl"^^:.^''.'.. '^.•^•^:. i^tway statioa. Unwevcr, onIiis applieatton fer bsai, tvsvras a-eJeascd witti eonditions. The petitioner is not a residcnt of Clihattisgarfa. and it is not possibJc for hiin to stay at Chhattisgarh durmg ttie Irial. Me is not in a position to laasays threc sureties and that too, fbr appearance beftM'c the Court along with the petitioncr after aa iaterval ofe^ht days tiU disposal ofthe case. 6. Tliis is a petition under Scctiou 482 of the Cr.P.C. for iavoking infaerent-jitrisdiction. The scope of interfercnce of inherent jurisdiction is very liauted. Uiiless grave iajustice is shown, it should iwt be uscd. ta case of State of Funjab Vs. Kasturi Lal rCported ia 2004 Cr.L.J. 3866(3868) (SC), the Apex Court has observed tbat: "Exsrcxse ofpower under S. 482 ofthe Code in a ocise of thss nature is the exception and. rwt the rule. '1'he section does not oonfer caiy new powers on the High Court. li only scwes the inherent pozoer which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. tt erwiaa.gea three arca.tmsicawes under which the inherent jurisdiction rnay t>e exerctsed, murwly, fi) to give ejfect fo an order under the Code, fii) to prevent abuse of the procesa of Court, arut fiii) to otherwise seaire the ends ofjustiw. tt is neither possible nor desirable to lay cbown any w^lexibte rule ivhii^t wouid govem fhe exerdse of inherent jurisdiction. flo iegislative enactment decUingwith prooectwe can provicte for dtl cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, ha.ve inherent poioers apart from. express proinsions of law which are necessary for proper disdwirge of fiinctions cmd ctuties wnposed upon thein by law. • That is the doctrine whi<difinds expressian in the section tuhich tnerely recognizea cmd. preserves inherent powers of the jHigh Courts. All courts, t-A. whetker civil or cmninal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their amstitution, atl sitch pawers as ccre necessary to cto the right and to uncto a v/rong in course af' adininistralion offustioe. While exerdsing pawers uncter the secdon though uncte has to be exerdsed sparingly, oarefutty and with cttution and onty when such exerdse is jusjtified by the tesfe speafically Imd down in the section ifsetf. tt t's to be exercssefi ex debito jusWae (o cto reat cmd substdntial justice for the admimstraS.wn of which alone Courts exist.' 7. ln the light of thje above proposition of tew, 1 examiaed the contention ofthe parties. 8. According to thc order nnpugned, the petitioner is aged Tl years old and resident of Ortesa. He was fouad ia possessioai of conteabaad -tjccnja. His bail appiication was allowed with the atbresaid conditkin. 9. 'l'he trial Uourt taas directed that he will not leave the State of Chhattisgarh tUl disposal of the case and he will appear before the trial Court along with three sureties with an interval of eight days till disposal ofthe case. 10. lt is argued. on behaff of the petltioner that the petitioner belongs to Orissa aad it is not possible -for him to produce three local sureties or tliree sureties fl?oia Orissa for appearance before the trial Court after cvery eight days along vrith three sureties. 11. ln the case of bail, trial Court is coaipetent to impose any condition but it must be rcasonable aad practicable. If the condition iiaposed by the Court is not reasonable then it amounts to denial ofjustice. A person, who is a resident of Orissa, WiU not be abje to fumish the sureties tbr his prescnce ataig witfa the —M petitioner with aa interval ofeight days till dteposal ofthe case, the condition hnposed by the Court is not reasoiiable, practicabJe aad will amount to denial of the bail. 13. ln the iastant case, conditioa imposed upon the applicant axuoiuit to hardship and denial of the baiL Consequently, the petition js aUowed.Thc condition iniposed upon Uie apptocant is partty inoclified and it ^ directed that ia the eveat of petitioaer fiimishing a bail bond of Ks. 30.000/- with. two solvent szu-eties of Ks. 15,000/- each to the satfefaction of the trial Court, he be reJeased on bial. The petitioner is ateo directed to preseat before the trial Court on each and every date of heamig, C.c. as per niles. T Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^'