TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in a nutshell are as follows: A First Information Report (in short the `FIR') was lodged on 16.9.1996 stating that 10 persons including the respondents 1 to 9 were responsible for the homicidal death of the husband of the informant, the appellant herein and her husband's uncle Mr. Hanif Ali. After completion of investigation charge sheet No. 1/2004 dated 28.2.2004 was filed by the investigating officer, Tejpur River Police Station, district Sonitpur. Eleven persons were shown as absconders including respondents 1 to 9. It is the case of the appellant that in spite of best efforts the police officials could not trace out the respondents. Learned SDJM issued non bailable warrants against the respondents. The respondents were decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned SDJM, the directions were given. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court seems to have completely lost sight of the fact that by several orders the trial Court had noted that the respondents were absconders. Therefore, the High Court could not have given a direction for release of the respondents on bail without even consideration of the merits of the case on surrender before the learned SDJM. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that reading in isolation the order of the learned SDJM, the learned Single Judge may appear to be wrong but when the entire material was placed on record before it, the High Court's directions cannot be faulted. It is submitted that pursuant to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....438. Even if it was so, the impugned directions could not have been given for releasing the respondents 1 to 9 in the manner done. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot be extended to grant of bail in the manner done. There was not even consideration of the merits of the case. The High Court was clearly in error by holding that there was no material to show that the respondents 1 to 9 were absconders. By so observing, the High Court completely lost sight of the fact that in the charge sheet filed respondents 1 to 9 were shown as absconders. Similarly in the orders dated 1.6.2004 and 4.6.2004 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned SDJM had clearly mentioned that 11 accused persons were absconders. This was obviousl....