PANFUL NESSA Vs. MIRAJ ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of Guwahati High Court directing that the respondents 1 to 9 shall be released on bail on surrendering before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang.

(3.) Background facts 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 husbands 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 Sonitput. 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 declared as proclaimed offenders. On 22-12-2005 on the strength of warrant of arrest one of the accused persons namely Rustom Ali was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody by learned SDJM. Subse quently, the respondents moved the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 18/2006 and prayed that the order directing issuance of non bailable warrants may be set aside. They also prayed that in the event of their appearance before the learned SDJM they may be released on bail. The High Court disposed of the said petition by order dated 24-3-2006 directing that in the event of the respondents making an application for grant of bail, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. A protection for the period of seven days was granted so that they could appear before the con cerned Court. Undisputedly, they did not appear within the stipulated time and moved the High Court for extension of time. The High Court granted the time till 18-4-2006 and directed the respondents to appear before the learned SDJM. On 17-4-2006 the learned SDJM was on leave and, therefore, it was placed before the learned CJM who directed the matter to be placed on 18-4-2006 before the learned SDJM. There is some amount of confusion as to whether really the respondents appeared on 18-4-2006. Be that as it may, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) was filed. The High Court passed the im pugned order where after taking exception to certain acts of learned SDJM, the di rections were given.