JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. 1.In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, one of the accused persons has sought for quashing the order of the Magistrate directing to issue process to the accused persons. 2. The complaint is the father of the deceased Pramod Kumar Jena. Alleging that the deceased had died in police lock-up at Jajpur Road on 24-8-1990, the complainant filed I.C.C. Case No. 26 of 1992 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jajpur Road, against three police officials including the present Petitioner. By order dated 6-8-1993, the Magistrate took cognizance and directed to issue summons against the three accused persons. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 1214 of 1994 the High Court permitted the accused persons to file application before the Magistrate to recall the order taking cognizance keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1992) 5 O.C.R. 66 K.N. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr. While considering the matter, the Magistrate found that there prima facie material against other two accused persons, but there was no prima facie material against the present Petitioner to hold that an offence u/s 302, I.P.C. has been committed by him. Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1995 was filed by one of the accused persons before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1995 challenging the order of the Magistrate recalling the order of cognizance so far as the present Petitioner is concerned. Both the revisions were taken up together and the provisional Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, on re-consideration, the Magistrate has come to hold that there is prima facie case against all the three accused persons including the present Petitioner and has directed issuance of summons. The said order is being challenged by the Petitioner who is one of the accused persons. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that death according to the prosecution case having taken place at Jajpur Road, the present Petitioner, who was an official in Kendrapara Police Station, cannot be held liable. He has further relied upon the V.H.F. message where under the present Petitioner was merely required to convey to the complainant the news of death of complainant's son. He has further relied upon the V.H.F. message where under the present Petitioner was merely required to convey to the complainant the news of death of complainant's son. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged custodial death of the deceased. The learned Magistrate has observed that the deceased was first taken into custody at Kendrapara Police Station where the present Petitioner was the Officer-In-Charge. The question as to whether the present Petitioner had any hand in the alleged custodial death of the deceased at Jajpur Road should not be considered at this stage as any discussion on this aspect is likely to prejudice either the prosecution or the accused person. The Petitioner is seeking to quash the order relating to issuance of process against him u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code The power u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code is to be sparingly used. Whether the present Petitioner had any contribution in the alleged custodial death of the deceased should be considered at the appropriate stage. It would be open to the Petitioner to raise such question at the stage of framing charge. I do not consider that this is a fit case, where in exercise of power u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the order taking cognizance should be quashed at this stage. 4. The Petitioner had also filed an application u/s 205. Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate on earlier occasion. Since the Magistrate on the earlier occasion was of the opinion that no prima facie case had been established against the present Petitioner, the application u/s 205, Criminal Procedure Code had become practically in fructuous so far as the present Petitioner is concerned. There is no dispute that the Petitioner is working as a police official. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that though a case for quashing u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code. has not been made out, the Petitioner on his appearing before the Magistrate on or before 30th November1998, should be enlarged on bail of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. It is made clear that any attempt by the Petitioner to tamper with prosecution evidence would entail cancellation of the order of bail. 20,000/- with two sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. It is made clear that any attempt by the Petitioner to tamper with prosecution evidence would entail cancellation of the order of bail. Needless to point out that the question as to whether charge should be framed against the Petitioner u/s 302, I.P.C. or any other section is a matter to be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observations made in this order. 5. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. The L.C.R. is sent back immediately. Criminal Misc. case disposed of.