B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 10-2-2000 passed by Special Judge (D. A. A.), Lalitpur in case Crime No. 924 of 1999, P. S. Kotwali, Lalitpur, by which the opposite party has been released on bail for offences under Sections 392, 364, 201, 411, I. P. C. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the opposite party. ( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party in this petition that the applicant can move an application for cancellation of the bail under Clause (2) of Section 439, Cr. P. C. It is contended that there is a specific provision under Clause (2) above and therefore, the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. cannot be exercised. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party in support of the argument has also referred to the case of Jitendra Kumar v. State of U. P. , 1995 (2) JIC 1656 . It was held in this case that it is well settled that in case alternative remedy is available the Court will not exercise the inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the opposite party, Section 439, Cr. P. C. provides for special powers of the High Court or the Court of Sessions regarding the bail. Clause (2) of that Section reads as under :"a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. " ( 6 ) THIS clause of Section 439, Cr. P. C. show that no alternative remedy is available to the applicant in the present case. The petition was filed immediately after the bail order was passed by the learned Special Judge, (D. A. A.), Lalitpur before the opposite party was actually released on bail. The order was challenged while the opposite party was in judicial custody and the operation of the order having been stayed by this Court by order dated 28-2-2000, the opposite party still continues in the judicial custody. The power under Clause (2) of Section 439, Cr. The order was challenged while the opposite party was in judicial custody and the operation of the order having been stayed by this Court by order dated 28-2-2000, the opposite party still continues in the judicial custody. The power under Clause (2) of Section 439, Cr. P. C. can be exercised only after the person is released on bail and this Court may order that he may be arrestedd and committed to the custody. However, in the present case at the time of the filing of the petition, the opposite party was in jail and therefore, no order could have been passed under Clause (2 ). It cannot be accepted that the applicant should have waited for the release of the opposite party from the jail and thereafter should have applied under Clause (2) above for cancellation of bail. In case the argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is accepted the applicant will have the right to challenge the order under Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. only after the release of the opposite party from the jail. Till the opposite party is released from the jail, the order cannot be challenged under Clause (2) of Section 439, Cr. P. C. Therefore, no alternative remedy was available to the applicant at the date when the petition was filed and also at present as the opposite party is still in jail. As such the present petition is maintainable and the preliminary objection of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is overruled. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the merits, learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Samujh, 1999 ACC 643. In this case the bail was granted under N. D. P. S. Act. Section 37, N. D. P. S. Act provide the conditions in which the bail can be granted to the accused but the High Court granted the bail by ignoring those conditions. It was observed that the Apex Court that the High Court has not given any justifiable reasons for not complying the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. The order for bail was therefore set aside. It was observed that the Apex Court that the High Court has not given any justifiable reasons for not complying the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. The order for bail was therefore set aside. The provisions of Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act are identical with Section 10 of the U. P. D. A. A. Therefore, in case of grant of bail to accused under this Act the mandate of law under Section 10 should have been complied with. A perusal of the bail order shows that it is very detailed order and the entire facts of the case were considered. However, there is not a single word regarding the provision of Section 10 of the above Act. There is no finding that the opposite party is entitled to bail in terms of the mandate of Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above case Union of India v. Ram Samujh (supra), the bail granted to the opposite party is fit to be cancelled. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed and the order dated 10-2-2000 passed by Special Judge, (D. A. A.), Lalitpur granting the bail to the opposite party in Case Crime No. 924 of 1999 is cancelled. However, it may be clarified that I have not judged the case of the opposite party for bail on merits. Therefore, the learned Special Judge (D. A. A.), Lalitpur is free to reconsider the question of grant of bail to the opposite party after following the mandate of Section 10 of the Act and may pass the proper order not influenced by any observation made above. In case the bail is refused by the learned Special Judge, (D. A. A.), Lalitpur, it may be considered by the High Court on merits not influenced by anything observed above. Petition allowed. .