Judgment ( 1. ) - This petition is for impugning the order dated 21. 2. 08 passed by jmfc, Guna in Criminal Case No. 892/07, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected an application under Section 437 (6)Cr. P. C. filed on behalf of the petitioner. ( 2. ) SHRI Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the similar application was filed earlier on behalf of the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 21. 8. 07 by the learned JMFC, Guna. The order was affirmed by Third Additional sessions Judge vide his order dated 23. 8. 07 which was impugned in this Court in M. Cr. C. No. 5135/07. While disposing of the petition, this Court observed that within one month the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh for bail under the same provision. Thereafter, petitioner applied and that application has also been rejected on 27. 10. 07 by the learned Magistrate and the order was affirmed by First Additional Sessions judge in Criminal Revision No. 369/ 07, vide his order dated 6. 11. 07. This order was also assailed by the petitioner M. Cr. C. No. 573/08 which has been disposed of vide order dated 28. 1. 08 with the observation "that a 15 days time from the date of communication of the order to the trial court is further given to the prosecution for examining its material witnesses or to conclude its evidence. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply afresh after expiry of this period, as provided by aforementioned provision, in case the trial is not concluded. " The trial is still not concluded vide impugned order dated 21. 2. 08. As observed by the learned Judge in the impugned order still three witnesses are yet to be examined. Again the petitioner applied before the learned Magistrate, in compliance of the aforementioned order dated 28. 1. 08. That application has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 21. 2. 08 observing that earlier at two times the similar applications have been dismissed and the Court is not having any power to review its earlier orders. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. Shri Tiwari has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 16. 4. 07. First date fixed for evidence was 19. 6. 07. Hence, as provided by Section 437 (6)Cr. P. C. the petitioner deserves bail. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. Shri Tiwari has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 16. 4. 07. First date fixed for evidence was 19. 6. 07. Hence, as provided by Section 437 (6)Cr. P. C. the petitioner deserves bail. In support he has drawn attention at an order of this Court passed by another Bench in Ram Kumar @ Raj Kumar v. State of m. P. ( 3. ) SHRI Mahore has submitted that many applications have been filed by the petitioner for the bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. which have been rejected by the Competent court, but not a single order has been filed by him. The application under Section 437 (6) of Cr. P. C. rejected by the learned magistrate and the ground mentioned therein are sufficient and on sufficient ground such application can be rejected. Remedy is available to the petitioner against the impugned order to apply under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. Once a remedy is available, petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. ( 4. ) SHRI Tiwari, in reply, has submitted that at two times application under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. were filed before this Court. Both were dismissed as withdrawn. Not a single application has been dismissed on merits by this Court. ( 5. ) IT is true that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 326 of IPC inflicting seven grievous injuries to the injured, but at the same time it is also true that indisputably he is in custody since 16. 4. 07 and the first date for evidence fixed was 19. 6. 07. As provided by Section 437 (6) of Cr. P. C. that: " (6 ). If, in any offence triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate; unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. " It appears that the period fixed is sixty days after fixing the first date for evidence. It is also true that upon mentioning reasons, bail can be refused. " It appears that the period fixed is sixty days after fixing the first date for evidence. It is also true that upon mentioning reasons, bail can be refused. Considering the seriousness of the allegation, the bail has already been refused at two times. Despite fixing time by this Court at two times by aforementioned two orders, prosecution did not conclude its case. It is not contended on behalf of the State that material witness or the eyewitnesses have not been examined. It is observed by the learned Magistrate in last lines of para-17 of the impugned order that material witnesses have already been examined. Underline idea of the Legislature in enacting this provision appears for early disposal of the cases and avoiding unnecessary detention of the accused persons on account of delay in disposal of such cases which are triable by a Magistrate. It is not disputed that the offence charged is triable by a Magistrate. Instead of a period of sixty days fixed by the Legislature, near about eight months have already been expired, which requires consideration by all concerns. Bail can be granted imposing conditions and in case of breach of conditions, the same can be cancelled thereafter. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, petitioner deserves bail. ( 6. ) INHERENT powers under Section 482 of cr. P. C. can be invoked when there appears miscarriage of justice or to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In aforementioned facts, there appears an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the powers can be invoked. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application under Section 437 (6) of Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner is also allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Trial court will be at liberty to impose conditions in accordance with law. Petition allowed.