- (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with a prayer to set aside Non Bailable Warrant dated 27.9.2014 issued against applicant in Complaint Case No. 964 of 2014 now Complaint Case No. 3257 of 2012. It has been further prayed that a direction be issued to Court concerned to consider their bail application of applicant on the same day in Case Crime No. 230 of 2003 under Sections 323, 504 and 494 IPC, Police Station Badagaon, district Varanasi in view of the law laid down in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 CrLJ 1981, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 4 SCC 437 and Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2005 1 AWC 416. From the order sheet, it is evident that consistently the applicant has remained absent, most of the time, and in these circumstances, the Court below was fully justified in issuing now bailable warrant. I do not find any illegality therein and therefore there is no justification to interfere.
(2.) Now taking the submission that the bail application of the applicant should be considered on the same date I propose to examine on this aspect of the matter with deeper scrutiny. It is not the case of applicant that he has already surrendered or that though he has attempted to surrender but there is any illegal, unauthorised obstruction created by respondents in such endeavour of applicant. It is also not the case that any authority of this Court or Apex Court though cited before Court concerned but it has refused to consider the same or ignored. No allegations have been made that the Court concerned is acting contrary to law or the Presiding Officer has any kind of bias etc. so as to pass an order without looking into the matter in accordance with law.
(3.) The law laid down by Apex Court by virtue of Article 145 of the Constitution of India, is binding on all Courts and authorities across the nation and everybody is supposed to act in the aid and enforcement of such law laid down by Supreme Court. There is no presumption that Courts below shall not follow the law laid down by Supreme Court. There is also no presumption that a decision of Supreme Court laying down certain law, if cited, in support of arguments by a party, before a Court, they would not be looked into and appreciated by such Court. To follow the law laid down by Supreme Court, no sanction or approval or direction of this Court is required. To ask for such direction, when there is no factual foundation in the application, is nothing but doubting the capability, approach and efficiency of subordinate Courts, which is not in the larger interest of institution as such. Moreover, in absence of any factual foundation, it is well established that no futile or uncalled for directions are to be issued by this Court. Its hand are already full of work and rather extremely loaded therewith, hence entertaining cases just for futile direction, which ex facie deserved to be dismissed, would be nothing but encouraging avoidable unnecessary burden upon this Court.;