- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Through this ap plication under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the two applicants, the husband and wife, have prayed for consideration of their bail ap plication at the court below at Budaun on the date of their surrender and their moving the said bail application in rela tion to case Crime No. 368 of 1998, P. S. Bisauli, District Budaun, for offences under Sections 352/332/504/336, IPC, read with Section 3 (1) (x) of the S. C. & S. T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. When con fronted with the Full Bench decision of this Court that directions for taking up batl Applications on the date of their presentation are not to be given; the learned Counsel relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court to say that these decisions would override the Full Bench decision of this High Court.
(2.) RELIANCE was placed on the order on the application for Special Leave Bear ing No. 2220 of 1998 (Maya Wati v. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi ). By its order dated 7-8-1998, the Supreme Court observed that there was no merit in the SLP. It was accordingly dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, directed that if the petitioner was arrested in connection with the concerned case, her bail applica tion 'shall be' considered by the concerned Magistrate on the same day. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Supreme Court as JT 1997 (1) SC 679, where the Supreme Court had directed that when the nature of the proceeding before the High Court was somewhat similar to those pending before the Apex Court in two other writ peti tions, the High Court was required to proceed with the matter in to a manner similar to which the Supreme Court had proceeded. This was in relation a civil ap peal arising out of an order recorded by the Patna High Court upon a writ petition. The procedure related to the jurisdiction of the High Court to monitor the inves tigation conducted by CBI or other agen cies. Questions of monitoring similar in vestigations were there before the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain 's case and the Supreme Court had given certain guidelines. The Supreme Court desired that when it was a question of monitoring, the same guidelines should be followed. Reliance was further placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 1729, wherein it was ob served, in interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution, that an obiter dictum by the Supreme Court was also expected to be obeyed and followed.
(3.) IN the case JT 1997 (1) SC 679, the Supreme Court had given certain guidelines in the matter of monitoring an investigation. IN that sense it was a declara tion of law and the High Court, under a similar circumstances, was directed to fol low the same guidelines. In the case AIR 1995 SC 1729, observation was made regarding finding nature of anobiterdictum. Anobiterdictum is an observation by a Court on a legal question suggested by a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision.;