- (1.) V. D. Chaturvedi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE petitioner's Counsel states that an F. I. R for the offence of murder was lodged against the five persons including the petitioner Anil Kumar; that the police submitted the charge sheet only against the three persons. Later on the investigation was conducted by C. B. C. I. D which submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner Anil Kumar also that meanwhile the witnesses of fact were examined in the session trial faced by three co-accused; that the witnesses of fact had denied the prosecution version in their statements recorded in the trial Court and also denied the presence of petitioner Anil Kumar. THE argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that when the witnesses of fact have denied the presence of the applicant at the spot, it would be nothing but the wastage of time to prosecute the petitioner. The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes a particular procedure for pros ecuting a person and that procedure prescribed by the Code cannot be disturbed under the garb of Section 482, Cr. P. C. This Court may pass only that order which is not inconsistent with the scheme of the Code. In exercise of its inherent power this Court cannot pass an order which overthrow the entire scheme of the trial prescribed by the Code. The charge-sheet has been submitted. The petitioner has to pass through the trial prescribed by the Code. There is no short cut to that scheme. The petition is devoid of merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioner appears in Court below within 14 days and applies for bail, his bail application may be heard and disposed of expeditiously in the light of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another v. State of U. P. and others, 2004 (2) JIC 630 (AII) (FB ). .;