- (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been with a prayer that a direction be issued to court concerned to consider their bail application of applicants on the same day in Case Crime No. 23 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Saiyadraja, District Chandauli in view of the law laid down in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 1994 CrLJ 1981, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 4 SCC 437 and Smt. Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 1 AWC 416.
(2.) I propose to examine on this aspect of the matter with deeper scrutiny. It is not the case of applicants that they have already surrendered or that though they have attempted to surrender but there is any illegal, unauthorised obstruction created by respondents in such endeavour of applicants. 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.;