Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could, in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, direct release of the accused on bail without examination of the merits and despite the accusation that they were absconders.
Analysis: The High Court's direction for bail was made in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code and not on an application for bail under the appropriate provisions. The record showed that the accused had been shown as absconders in the charge-sheet and in earlier judicial orders. The direction for release on bail was issued without consideration of the merits of the case and without leaving the bail question to be decided by the competent court in accordance with law. The inherent jurisdiction could not be extended to grant bail in the manner adopted.
Conclusion: The direction granting bail was unsustainable and was set aside. The accused were left to appear before the concerned court, and any bail application was to be considered on its own merits by that court.
Final Conclusion: Inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to foreclose or substitute the ordinary judicial consideration of bail on merits by the competent court.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked to grant bail without merits-based consideration, especially where the accused's status and the bail question fall to be decided by the competent court.