Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

The petitioner is an employee of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Raipur, which is a Government Company. In a Special Case No.794/2015 arising out of Crime No.09/2015 by Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur relating to offence under Sections 109, 120- B, 409 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was cited as prosecution witness, in which, two accused persons namely Kaushal Kishore Yadu & Sudhir Kumar Bhole made an application under Section 319/193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was rejected by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur by order dated 13.04.2016. The said accused persons namely Kaushal Kishore Yadu & Sudhir Kumar Bhole filed Criminal Revision Nos. 403/2016 & 484/2016, respectively before this Court there-against.

2. Both the Criminal Revisions have been allowed by this Court by its order dated 03.03.2017 directing the trial Court to proceed further with the trial by making the present applicant & two other accused persons as accused persons by issuing summons to them and thereafter proceed with the prosecution.

3. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sole relief claimed by the petitioner is that the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur be restrained from arresting the petitioner in Special Case No. 794/2015 arising out of Crime No.09/2015.

4. Mr. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is a public servant, he cannot be arrested without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and, therefore, Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur be restrained from arresting him by allowing instant writ petition.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the writ petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above with utmost circumspection.

7. It is well settled law that inherent power conferred on this Court under Section 482 CrPC has not to be exercised in the matter covered by specific provisions of the Code. In the present case, the petitioner has specific remedy of moving application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional criminal court, if he apprehends his arrest in some criminal case, he cannot maintain petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to circumvent the statutory provision and claim blanket order of anticipatory bail in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. In the matter of Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others (1999) 6 SCC 146, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has clearly held that expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law and held as under :-

"2. It appears that unfortunately the High Court by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "the Code") has prevented the flow of justice on the alleged contention of the convicted accused that it was polluted by the so-called misconduct of the judicial officer. It is true that under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of the process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for a