K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER in a writ of Habeas Corpus praying for production of daughter-in-law before the Court, the petitioner can also be permitted to amend the petition praying for further relief of bail of his son arrested for the alleged offences punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 of IP Code, allegedly kidnapping and raping the said daughter-in-law on the complaint filed by her father and get necessary bail order persuant thereto? This, in short, is the question we have been called upon to answer and decide in the background and context of the following facts-situation. ( 2 ) CHANDRASINH Kabhai Jadav, by this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court inter alia praying for issuance of the writ of Habeas corpus against Nari Samrakshak Gruh, Bharuch and one Ganpatsinh Dipsinh Jadav, respondent Nos. 2 and 4 respectively directing them to produce before this Court Jagruti, his daughter-in-law who has not only married with his son Gumansinh but was also carrying a baby of the said wed-lock. 2. 1. When this matter came up on Admission Board, we had issued a Notice on 27th march, 1996, making it return on 3rd April, 1996, directing the respondent-Nari samrakshak Gruh, Bharuch to produce Jagrutiben before us. Accordingly she was produced before us. On that day, this Court passed the following order:- "in response to our Notice dated 27-3-1996, the respondent No. 2 - Nari saurakshak Gruh, Bharuch, has produced before us Jagruti. Unfortunately, the respondent No. 4 Ganpatsinh Dipsinh Jadav has not remained present as it is reported that when the petitioner went to serve the notice, he refused to accept the same. Under the circumstances, we direct the PI Ankleshwar Police Station to serve a notice of this Court on Ganpatsinh Dipsinh Jadav, which is made returnable on 8th April, 1996. Since the matter is now adjourned to 8-4-1996, we once again direct Nari saumakshak Gruh, Bharuch to take Jagruti back and keep her there till 8-4-1996 and produce her before this Court on 8-4-1996 at 2. 45 p. m. The Office is directed to handover a packet of notice to be served through PI ankleshwar Police Station to the Head Constable Ukabhai Kalabhai, Buckle No. 1342 of ankleshwar Police Station, who is present before this Court. 45 p. m. The Office is directed to handover a packet of notice to be served through PI ankleshwar Police Station to the Head Constable Ukabhai Kalabhai, Buckle No. 1342 of ankleshwar Police Station, who is present before this Court. The office is also directed to give a true copy of this Order to Nari Saurmakshak Gruh, Bharuch. "2. 2. On 8th April, 1996, when she was once again produced before us, the following order was passed:- "in response to our direction, Nari Saurakshak Gruh, Bharuch has kept Jagruti present before this Court. Not only that but Ganpatsinh Dipsinh Jadav- father of Jagruti is also present before us. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Bharuch to produce before us Gumansinh Chandrasinh Jadav on 10th April, 1996 at 11. 00 a. m. , without fail, who is arrested in connection with CR No. 434/94 of ankleshwar Police Station. Direct service on the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Bharuch to be served through police Constable Gokalbhai Kalabhai. In the meantime, we request the superintendent of Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad to accommodate Jagruti in her Vikas Gruh upto 10th April, 1996 and on that day, she shall be produced before this Court at 11. 00 a. m. , with police escort, without fail. "2. 3. In response to the above Order, Jagrutiben is once again produced before us and we have recorded her statement. According to her she was born on 28th November, 1977 at village Bharan and she is married with Gumansinh. Further, according to her, she was pregnant and accordingly intends, rather resolute to return to her matrimonial home only. On the earlier date, father of Jagrutiben was very much present in the Court-room. In his presence also, Jagrutiben had expressed that she intended to return to her matrimonial house, however by way of abundant caution, we had sent her to Nari Vikas Gruh to enable her to disabuse her mind, if possibly under some threat or pressures she was not freely expresing herself before the Court and further to cooly ponder over her fate to embolden her and reassuredly telling us where she ultimately intended to return! Once again, she being reproduced before us, she in as unmistakable terms has shown her inclination to return to her matrimonial home only. Once again, she being reproduced before us, she in as unmistakable terms has shown her inclination to return to her matrimonial home only. Under the circumstances, we have indeed no alternative but to permit her to go wherever she likes. It prima facie appears that she is married with Gumansinh, with her free consent and that no illegal pressure was brought upon her. It is also not disputed before us that she was not pregnant as on today. In this view of the matter, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Jagruti is permitted to return to her matrimonial home. ( 3 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Superintendent, Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, ahmedabad is directed to permit Jagrutiben right from the Court premises to go alongwith her father-in-law, who is very much present before us. ( 4 ) AT this stage, Mr. Amit J. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for petitioner submitted that prima facie from her statement before the Court when Jagruti has ultimately deposed that she had gone with the accused-Gumansinh Chandrasinh of her free will with whom by now she is not only married but was pregnant also, and also intends to return to her matrimonial home, the accused deserves to be released on bail. ( 5 ) AS against the above, opposing prayer for bail, Mr. M. A. Bukhari, the learned app submitted that the accused came to be arrested by the police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC vide CR No. I-432/96 of Ankleshwar police Station on the complaint being filed by one Ganpatsinh Dipsinh Jadav alleging that his daughter Jagruti was kidnapped and raped. The learned APP further submitted that in this regard, on behalf of the accused, bail application the same being Misc. Criminal application No. 111/96 was filed before the Sessions Court at Bharuch, which came to be rejected by an order dated 8th March, 1996. Under the circumstances, the learned APP further submitted that if at all the petitioiner wanted his son to be released on bail, he be directed to file a separate application challenging the impugned order passed by the sessions Court refusing the bail of the accused. Under the circumstances, the learned APP further submitted that if at all the petitioiner wanted his son to be released on bail, he be directed to file a separate application challenging the impugned order passed by the sessions Court refusing the bail of the accused. ( 6 ) NODOUBT, technically speaking, the learned APP is indeed quite right but then there are cases and cases where the court particularly the High Court should not succumb to such technical pleas and feel totally embarassed and helpless in scrapping aside the same by activeting itself into suo-moto action resorting to its inherent power under section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in the light of the statement of jagruti before this Court, if the accused files bail application, and further, when it ultimately deserves to be allowed is the only forgone conclusion, there is indeed no fun in asking accused to file a separate bail application just for the sake of filing before this court. It would be stretching the technically to the ridiculous extent. Accordingly, wherever there is an unavoidable necessity to follow some procedure, the Court must scrupulously follow the same but at the same time, when it can be safely avoided, given-up, the Court must have a courage to exercise its discretion pragmatically, not to become the victim and allegations of the mechnical approach. Justice is required to be done in "wakeful state" and "not half wakeful mechanical state". In fact, looking to the back-log of cases, delays, expenses in litigation and all sort of harassment and inconvenience of accused, police, public prosecutor and the concerned Court also, this court should not be that blind, mechanical and technical in unnecessarily asking the accused to file separate application just to satisfy its institutional ego, more particularly when with the help of the learned public prosecutor the present prayer for bail can be straightway conveniently take care of and disposed off. This will surely save unnecessary multiplication of proceedings, waste of precious public-time of courts and save the accused from the financial burden that may entail by way of fees to advocates and other incidental costs. This will surely save unnecessary multiplication of proceedings, waste of precious public-time of courts and save the accused from the financial burden that may entail by way of fees to advocates and other incidental costs. In this view of the matter, we at this stage, without entering into merits of this case, exercising our extra-ordinary power under Section 482 of the code, quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 8-3-1996, passed by learned sessions Judge, Bharuch in Misc. Application No. Ill of 1996, rejecting the bail and grant bail to Gumansinh who stands arrested and in judicial custody in connection with i-CR No. 432/94 of Ankleshwar Police Station, in sue of Rs. 2000/- with one surety of the like amount. ( 7 ) WE, under the circumstances, without entering into merits of the criminal case, exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, quash and set-aside the said impugned order passed by the Sessions Court, Bharuch, refusing to release accused on bail, and grant him bail right now and here. Order accordingly. .