VIJENDER JAIN ( 1 ) THIS petition was sent in this Court by Devi Charan, the petitioner before me, through Jail, which was registered as Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 3270/94. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was committed to judicial custody on 15. 12. 1979 to face trial in case FIR No. 1392/1979 under Section 307, 392,394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was convicted on 21. 12. 1985 and sentenced to life imprisonment. An order on behalf of the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi No. F-89/20/94-Home (General) dated 9. 11. 1994 was issued pursuant to which the petitioner was ordered to be released on 9. 11. 1994. The order inter alia stated that the Lt. Governor was pleased to remit unexpired portion of the sentence of 22 life convicts on the recommendation of the Sentence Revising Board subject to the conditions that they shall execute personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Delhi for keeping good behaviour and maintaining peace during the unexpired portion of their sentence. As the petitioner, in this case, was not in a position to produce sureties as aforesaid, he is still languishing in Jail in spite of the order of his release being passed on 9. 11. 1994. ( 3 ) I appointed Mr. A. K. Singhla, Advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter as an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the State that as this petition has been filed for reducing the amount against the order of remission passed by the Lt. Governor, a writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India will be maintainable. Mr. Singhla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that power to grant pardon or remission flows from the provisions of Article 72 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India. The Article 72 of the Constitution gives powers to the President of India whereas similar provisions are contained in Article 161 giving powers to the Governor of the State. That may not be germane to the controversy in question as the very basis of the exercise of these powers are not relevant. ( 4 ) FROM the bare perusal of the order of the Lt. Governor dated 9. 11. That may not be germane to the controversy in question as the very basis of the exercise of these powers are not relevant. ( 4 ) FROM the bare perusal of the order of the Lt. Governor dated 9. 11. 1994, it has been specifically mentioned that the Lt. Governor has exercised powers conferred by Section 432/433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "cr. P. C. " ). Mr. Singhia has further argued that if the order of remission, which has been passed by the Lt. Governor under the provisions of Cr. P. C. with the stipulation of directing the petitioner to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 with two sureties in the like amount, the Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. can reduce the said amount because that order would be to secure the ends of justice. He has also cited in support of his arguments Vishwa Nath Verma V. Commissioner of Police and anr. 1986 Crl. L. J. 1800. Although this authority does not deal with this question specifically because in that case the question was whether parole or furlough could be granted by the Court and basing on the case of Maru Ram V. UOI AIR 1980 SC 2147 the Court held "section 433a does not forbid parole or other release within the 14 years span. So to interpret the section as to intensify inner tension and intermissions of freedom is to do violance to language and liberty. " ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. R. D. Jolly, learned counsel for the State, has argued that as the power to give remission is an executive action, the Court exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. will not have jurisdiction to alter or modify the terms of the order dated 9. 11. 1994 issued by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In support of his arguments, Mr. Jolly has relied upon Mohan Singh and ors. V. State 1993 Cri. L. J. 3193. I am afraid this authority is of no help to the learned counsel for the State. 11. 1994 issued by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi. In support of his arguments, Mr. Jolly has relied upon Mohan Singh and ors. V. State 1993 Cri. L. J. 3193. I am afraid this authority is of no help to the learned counsel for the State. As a matter of fact, after discussing the case law on the subject the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court laid down that- "the High Court possesses the inherent powers to be exercised exdebito justitiae to do the real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone court exists. . . . . . . . . " ( 6 ) SEEING it from any angle, here is a case where the petitioner, according to his own averments, was in judicial custody since 15. 12. 1979. He has been released by the Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi while exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 432 and 433a of the Cr. P. C. To argue that this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. and Court reduce the amount of surety and to agree with the submissions of the counsel for the State would be to nullify the intention of the Legislature, which has been expressed in the language of Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. are plenary powers given to the High Court. These powers are neither fettered nor restricted so long they are exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to do justice between the parties. A person, who has been otherwise released by the order of Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi dated 9. 11. 1994, should not suffer because of his poverty or because he could not arrange for the sureties as mentioned in the order and if that is allowed to be done, that will be denial of justice and will be the abuse of the judicial administration. ( 7 ) IT is all the more impracticable for a person, who has spent 15 years in Jail, to find some sureties outside the Jail. Some pragmatic and practicable approach has to be taken in considering these cases. I, therefore release the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. ( 7 ) IT is all the more impracticable for a person, who has spent 15 years in Jail, to find some sureties outside the Jail. Some pragmatic and practicable approach has to be taken in considering these cases. I, therefore release the petitioner on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 with one surety in the sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 to the District Magistrate for keeping good behaviour and maintaining peace during the unexpired portion of his sentence. ( 8 ) PETITION stands disposed of. ( 9 ) COPY of this order be sent to Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi for compliance forthwith.