Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to bypass bail remedies where non-appearance shows deliberate avoidance of court process.

Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to obtain bail or anticipatory bail indirectly when the Code provides specific bail remedies. The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the request to recall the arrest warrant had become unnecessary because its execution had already been kept in abeyance and the warrant was to be recalled if issued. It further held that repeated non-appearance before the trial court, an unsupported explanation for absence, and withdrawal of an earlier anticipatory bail petition showed deliberate avoidance of process, so the petition was not maintainable as a bypass of the bail provisions. No perversity or illegality was found in the impugned orders, and interference was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be used to quash the arrest warrant and obtain bail or anticipatory bail notwithstanding the availability of specific bail remedies and the petitioner's repeated non-appearance before the trial court.

Analysis: The petitioner's prayer for recall of the arrest warrant did not survive because the trial court had already kept its execution in abeyance and recalled it if issued. On the merits, the petitioner sought bail through inherent jurisdiction after having failed in the regular bail route and after filing and withdrawing an anticipatory bail petition. The Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to secure bail indirectly when the Code contains specific provisions governing bail. The petitioner's repeated failure to honour summons, the unsupported explanation for non-appearance, and the trial court's finding that his conduct was not bona fide showed deliberate avoidance of the process of court. The Court also found no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders rejecting exemption and declining interference.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable as a device to bypass the bail provisions, and no interference with the impugned orders was warranted. The reliefs sought were rejected.

---