The inherent power of the court to pass orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court is always there and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, but the court should exercise its powers very sparingly and cautiously in the rarest of rare cases.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was initially filed by four persons, namely, Lalji Yadav, Shahabuddin, Ataur Rahman urf Babu and Imtiaz Ahmad, who were allegedly involved in case crime No. 19 of 1997 under Section 364-A/120-B/302/34 I. P. C. police station Bhelupra, Varanasi, challenging the order dated 30/08/1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi by which the bail application of the applicants was rejected on the ground that they were not in custody of that court. It may be mentioned here that the application of one Mukhtar Ansari was also considered along with the bail application of these persons and the accused were detained in Ghazipur Jail in connection with some other offence.

( 2 ) ON 8-9-97 an application was moved on behalf of Mukhtar Ansari son of Subhanullah Ansari for being him impleaded as petitioner No. 5 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5537 of 1997. Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D. V. Singh appeared on behalf of Mukhatar Ansari and Stated that the applicants Lalji Yadav and others have no objection if Mukhtar Ansari is impleaded as petitioner No. 3, with them and he was appearing on behalf of those applicants as well as on behalf of Mukhtar Ansari applicant also. In view of this development, the application was allowed and Mukhtar Ansari was permitted to be impleaded as petitioner No. 5.

( 3 ) ANOTHER application was filed on behalf of Mukhtar Ansari to the effect that he be treated to be in custody in the aforesaid case crime No. 19 of 1997 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur be directed to grant the remand during the pendency of the investigation under Section 167 Cr. P. C. It was orally prayed that the execution of b warrant be stayed against him. This Court heard the matter and passed a detailed order on 9-9-1997 in which it was provided that if the accused applicant Mukhtar Ansari was required to be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, adequate security arrangements should be provided to him and the applicant shall be sent by the Jail authorities under the protection of a force other than the local police in case the order was produced before the jail authorities by 10. 00 A. M. the next day. It was left open for the parties concerned to apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi about the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1932 of 1997 Shrimati Shanti Rungata v. State of U. P. dated 3-9-1997 as well as the facts stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the C. B. I. and if the court concerned considered that it was necessary to take the applicants into custody, it was free to pass appropriate orders.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that vide order dated 3-9-1997 a Division Bench of this Court ordered that the matter should be investigated by C. B. I. and accordingly a direction was issued that the investigation in respect of the aforesaid case crime No. 19/97 under Section 364-A/ 366 I. P. C. P. S. Bhelupura Varanasi shall be conducted by the C. B. I. Thereafter two applications were moved by applicant Mukhtar Ansari. In one application he prayed for the modification of the order dated 9-9-1997 in his respect that his arrest may be stayed during the pendency of the investigation by the C. B. I. till the submission of the charge sheet by the C. B. I. and in the other application he prayed to be permitted to amend the prayer made by him in the application filed by him on 8-9-1997 to the effect that his arrest may be stayed during the investigation by the C. B. I.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants Sri P. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, learned Standing Counsel for the C. B. I. Sri Girdhar Nath and the learned counsel appearing for the informant Sri C. N. Tripathi have been heard at quite length.

( 6 ) SRI P. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the application for amendment in the original application be allowed an