JUDGMENT 1. - By this misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner seeks for extention of time to produce the personal and sureties bonds for probation in compliance of the order dated 24-4-91 of this Court. 2. Mr Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to communication gap and postal delay the accused - petitioner could not be informed and, therefore, he could not submit the requisite bonds in pursuance of the order of this Court. He submits that the petitioner moved before the court below for extention but the same was rejected on the ground that only the High Court can extend the time. He has relied on Keshar Singh v. State of Raj., RLR 1988 (2)-867 and Bajsingh v. State, RCC 1991-91 .Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 3. This Court is aware that time for depositing fine cannot be extended but the petitioner by way of this misc. petition seeks extention of time for submitting probation bonds. Admittedly, there is no specific provision given in the Criminal Procedure Code for the period during which such bonds are to be furnished, but it depends upon the facts of each individual case on the basis of which the court comes to conclusion that time should be extended or not. Though it is necessary to furnish the requisite bonds within stipulated time granted by the court but on showing reasonable and sufficient cause for not furnishing the bonds this Court can grant further time for submitting bonds to meet the ends of justice is the exercise of inherent - powers vested under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code That apart even when both the courts below did not consider the grant of benefit of probation, this Court may extend such benefit as it is mandatory and enacted to release accused on good conduct after admonition. In this case, the petitioner has established that the order was not communicated due to lapse of advocate or postal agency and further there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was informed but then too he did not file the bonds. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, if the time for furnishing bonds is not extended, it will certainly frustrate the purpose of granting of benefit of probation. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the position. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, if the time for furnishing bonds is not extended, it will certainly frustrate the purpose of granting of benefit of probation. Learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the position. In view of the above discussion, I deem it just and proper to extend the time for furnishing the bonds for a period of further one month from today and the petitioner is directed to furnish the bonds in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 24-4-91. In case, the bonds are not furnished within the period so granted, the court below will be free to proceed according to law. 4. In the result, the misc. petition is disposed of with the above observations. *******