- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed praying that the order, dated 1-2-1994 passed by the Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 654 of 1987, State v. Kripal and Ors. , under Section 302 I. P. C. be quashed.
(2.) BY the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge had cancelled the bail granted to the applicants by this Court. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was illegal and untenable in the eyes of law and so the same was liable to be quashed. Sri A. B. L. Gaur has appeared on behalf of the informant opposite party No. 2 and has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability or this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The argument by Shri Gaur is that the powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which are inherent power, should not be exercised when an alternative remedy is available to the applicants. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel that the applicants can in the present case, file a Bail application before this Court which can be heard and decided on merits and in view of this alternative remedy, the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. will not lie. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned A. G. A. and have perused the record of the case. I will take up the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. It is well settled that in case an alternative remedy is available this Court will not exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Reference may be made to a case Madhulimay v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 SC 47 and other cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The question will arise as to whether there is any alternative remedy available to the applicants in a case where their bail has been cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has argued that the applicants should in the case move bail application before this Court and pray for grant of bail. In my view this argument appears to be quite correct. There is not bar against moving a fresh bail application by the applicants before this Court. This Court on being stisfied can grant bail to the applicant in case its finds that their bail has wrongly been cancelled by the Court below. Reference may be made to the decision in the case Satendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P, 1988 ACC 487, in which case it has been held that an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. will not be maintainable against an order cancelling the bail. It was mentioned in the case that the person aggrieved had an alternative remedy to move application for bail before this Court. In my view this decision is fully applicable to the present case.
(3.) CONSIDERING the above facts it is held that the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. will not lie in such a case, as the applicants have alternative remedy by moving application for bail before this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed on this preliminary point. Petition dismissed. .;