Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner in this writ petition, we are disposed to think, has conceived the idea that economy in litigation is an out-dated concept and should be ostracized and no court at any point of time show any parsimony, however, frivolous the litigation may be, and a litigant has the monopoly to make mockery of majesty of law. And, possibly, further nurturing the notion that he can deliver the unending monologue as if the Rule of Law is obliged to serve his monomania. The result, in quint-essentiality, is adulteration of the concept of justice dispensation system. Despite the flippancy and brazenness of the nature of litigation, asservations have been made to build an edifice as if it is the "pink of perfection". We can only say that the petitioner in his thought and action seems to be static imagining himself. to be a poem without words, thought without a thought, and if we allow ourselves to say, determined to suffocate the essential features of Rule of Law, the Magna carta of our democratic body polity. ( 2. ) WE have begun with the aforesaid prefatory note because the litigation is not only unusal but also a perplexing one. A petition under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure was filed forming the subject-matter of m. Cr. C. No. 7041/2008 for obtaining bail in respect of offences punishable under section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13 (l) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of Special case No. 18/07 pending before the Special Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation cases at Jabalpur. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed the following order:- "the Supreme Court in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy vs. State of T. N. (2002) 10 SCC 653 , taking note of the fact that, in pursuance of the undertaking given by him, the applicant/accused had already deposited a sum of Rs. 35 crores, proceeded to modify the condition requiring payment of balance sum of Rs. 15 crores by directing that instead, he could furnish corporate guarantee. 35 crores, proceeded to modify the condition requiring payment of balance sum of Rs. 15 crores by directing that instead, he could furnish corporate guarantee. In a recent decision, rendered in Sureshchandra ramanlal vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 AIR SCW 4004, the Apex court, while granting bail to ex-Vice Chairman of the Bank, who was charged with financial irregularities, has imposed a condition of depositing sum of Rs. 40 lacs with the Bank. It is true that these precedents relate to prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but they certainly provide illuminating guidelines for exercising discretion while incorporating conditions of a regular bail. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail subject to condition of depositing the entire amount forming subject-matter of the offence of cheating. It is, therefore, directed that if applicant viz. Bijendra Singh deposits Rs. 4,30,000/- (Rupees four lacs thirty thousand) with the Bank and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a solvent surety in, the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, he shall be released on bail. Needless to say, nothing contained herein would, in any way, affect the merits of the case. " ( 3. ) AFTER the aforesaid order came to be passed an application was filed for deletion of the condition as regards the deposit of amount as directed in the main order. The said application was filed under section 439 Cr. P. C. read with Section 482 Cr. P. C. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision rendered in Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169 declined to modify the order, The said order was passed on 19. 12. 2008 in M. Cr. C. No. 10900/2008. Against the said order a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 727/2009 was preferred. The Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition. ( 4. ) AFTER dismissal of the said petition the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- "i. To issue an appropriate writ for deletion of condition as to deposit of Rs. 4,30,000/- in order dated 19. 8. 2008 in m. Cr. C. No. 7041/08 (Anx. P-1 ). II. ( 4. ) AFTER dismissal of the said petition the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- "i. To issue an appropriate writ for deletion of condition as to deposit of Rs. 4,30,000/- in order dated 19. 8. 2008 in m. Cr. C. No. 7041/08 (Anx. P-1 ). II. To call for the case diary of Crime No. RX0092005a0007, dated 3/9/05 registered with P. S. C. B. I,, A. C. B. , S. P. E. Jabalpur for perusal. III. To grant any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of present case. " ( 5. ) WE have heard Mr. A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State. ( 6. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Singh that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy but to invoke the inherent and equitable jurisdiction of this Court for deletion of the condition pertaining to deposit inasmuch imposition of such a condition for grant of bail tantamount to not granting of bail. ( 7. ) PER contra, Mr. Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as no writ can be issued for quashing the order of the learned Single Judge. It is urged by him that this Court does not exercise the original jurisdiction nor the power of superintendence as envisaged under the Constitution in respect of an order which has been passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of power under Code of Criminal Procedure. It is proponed by him that this is inconceivable petition and deserves to be thrown overboard. ( 8. ) IT is well settled in law that a writ can be issued for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as other legal rights. Article 226 in its connotative expanse confers power on the High Court to issue writ for enforcement of fundaments rights as well as for other purposes, but, a pregnant one, it is extremely difficult to conceive a situation where a writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to rectify or substitute a part of the order passed under section 439 Cr. P. C. by the learned Single Judge of the said Court. If the condition is imposed by a judge of the subordinate judiciary, indubitably this Court has the power under section 482 Cr. P. C. by the learned Single Judge of the said Court. If the condition is imposed by a judge of the subordinate judiciary, indubitably this Court has the power under section 482 Cr. P. C. to delete or modify the condition. The same may possibly be done in exercise of writ jurisdiction. But the writ court cannot exercise jurisdiction to modify the condition imposed in the order while granting bail by the learned single Judge of the High Court. ( 9. ) IN this context, we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in Manohar m. Galani vs. Ashok N. Advani and another, (1999) 8 SCC 737 wherein the high Court in exercise of its power under extraordinary jurisdiction interfered with the collateral proceedings initiated by the High Court itself in an application filed in public interest. Their Lordships in paragraph 4 expressed the view as under:- "4. So far. as the public interest petition is concerned, not only the counsel for both sides agreed that the same ought not to have been set aside but we also fail to understand how the High court in exercise of its power under extraordinary jurisdiction can interfere with a collateral proceeding initiated by the High court itself in an application filed in public interest. There cannot be any disputed that the facts revealed a serious scandal in the functioning of some subordinate court in the State of Gujarat, and, therefore, the High Court took cognizance of the matter and directed inquiry to be conducted and on the basis of the said inquiry it was open for the High Court to issue necessary directions and at that stage the impugned order has emanated. In our considered opinion the order in the impugned judgment setting aside the aforesaid public interest petition is erroneous and we, therefore, set aside the said order and direct that the public interest petition should be considered by the High Court on merits on the basis of the reports submitted to the court and appropriate directions be given, whatever the court thinks fit. " ( 10. ) AFTER so stating we would have dismissed the writ petition, but we are compelled to enter into another arena as we are disposed to think that the petitioner seems to think that he can approach the Court of law by invoking any jurisdiction. " ( 10. ) AFTER so stating we would have dismissed the writ petition, but we are compelled to enter into another arena as we are disposed to think that the petitioner seems to think that he can approach the Court of law by invoking any jurisdiction. In Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. , (1999) 1 SCC 37 it has been said that the judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology whether it is by litigant or by counsel. The Court of law is required to act according to Rule of Law. It is a negation of Rule of Law. If the court accedes to any kind of emotional conceptuality of any unscrupulous tactics adopted by the litigant. The Court is required to subserve the basic requirement of society. If the Court entertains and addresses itself to flippant litigations which are. preferred contrary to norms, it creates a concavity in the legitimacy of the judicial process. It is the duty of the Court to see that lawlessness in preferring the litigation is not allowed to encroach. A litigant cannot file a litigation after litigation as that amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The same has been stated in Ajit Prasad Gupta v. State of U. P. , AIR 1997 SC 3425 . ( 11. ) IN this regard we may fruitfully refer to the decision rendered in the case of ashok Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority, (1994) 6 SCC 97 wherein the supreme Court has held that where the Supreme Court by its earlier order, in the matter of allotment of plots by the DDA, had directed the DDA to intimate the respondents therein the amount required to be paid by them depending upon the size of plot and on such payment within one month make the allotment in their favour, the writ petition filed by those persons seeking mandamus against demand for excess amount being sheer abused of process, of the Court, is not maintainable since the Courts earlier order under Article 136 had become final. ( 12. ( 12. ) IN this context, it would not be out of place to refer to the decision rendered in Advocate General, State of Bihar vs. M. P. Khair Industries, (1980) 3 SCC 311 wherein their Lordships have referred to a passage from Halsburys Law of england which is as follows :- "38. Abuse of process is general- The court has power to punish as contempt any misuse of the courts process. Thus the forging or altering of court documents and other deceits of like kind are punishable as serious contempts. Similarly, deceiving the courts or the courts officer by deliberately suppressing the fact or giving false facts, may be a punishable contempt. Certain acts of a lesser nature may also constitute an abuse of process as, for instance, initiating or carrying on proceedings with are wanting in bonafides or which are frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In such cases the court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out of staying proceeding or by prohibiting the taking of further proceedings without leave. Where the court, by exercising its statutory powers, its powers under the rules of Code, or its inherent jurisdiction can give an adequate remedy. It will not in general punish the abuse as a contempt of court. On the other hand, where an irregularity or misuse of process amounts to an offence against justice, extending its influence beyond the parties, to the action, it may be punished as a contempt. ", ( 13. ) RECENTLY, in Uyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of u. P. , (2008) 1 SCC 560 it has been observed that a writ remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching the superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. In the said decision it has been further observed that a litigant should not take to legal proceedings over and over again as it amounts to abuse of the process of law. Their Lordships reiterated the principle that was stated vxm. P. Khair Industries (supra) that the repeated filing of writ petitions amount to the criminal contempt. ( 14. ) THE present writ petition can be viewed as a bizarre attempt on the part of the petitioner. It shows that he has no respect for the Rule of Law. Their Lordships reiterated the principle that was stated vxm. P. Khair Industries (supra) that the repeated filing of writ petitions amount to the criminal contempt. ( 14. ) THE present writ petition can be viewed as a bizarre attempt on the part of the petitioner. It shows that he has no respect for the Rule of Law. Advancement of justice under Article 226/227 of the Constitution does not mean that a writ petition which is not maintainable and absolutely frivolous should be addressed on merits. Such kind of indulgence, guillotines the moral values of the society arid smothers the sacrosanctity and sanctity of law. He who lives in his own world and follow his norms of law, in fact, is a person having attributes of notorious lawlessness. ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we conclude and hold that the writ petition is not only not maintainable but is absolutely misconceived and is hereby dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/ -. Petition dismissed.