SITA PATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Virendra Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. B. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned State counsel. I have also gone through the material placed on the record. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the further fact that the applicant is a woman, I am of the view that ball may be granted to her.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant has cited the case of Chandrawati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1992 JIC 456, in which certain observations have been made considering the grant of bail in dowry related offences. There can be no hard and fast rule governing grant or refusal of bail and the observations in the case of Chandrawati (supra) have been made in the context of the peculiar facts of that case. Facts of each case differ and even a seemingly insignificant fact may change the entire complexion of the case. Thus, if bail is granted or refused in one case, it does not have the effect of laying down any law and such a bail order cannot be cited as a precedent. Bail cannot be allowed or refused on the ground that bail has been granted or refused In a similar, but different case because each case has its own pecularities and the question of parity does not at all arise. Unfortunately, a trend has recently developed of citing bail orders as rulings before the subordinate Judges who are in a fix. According to all known canons of law, decisions on questions of fact are not to be cited as rulings and the courts are always free to form their own opinions considering the facts and circumstances of the cases before them. However, decisions of superior courts on points of law are binding.