BABUNI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners are in custody in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 120B and Sections 302 and 201 IPC were added later on, on recovery of the dead body of two persons. Petitioner No. 1 is named in the FIR and petitioner no. 2 has been named is course of investigation.

(2.) ON behalf of petitioners, it is stated with reference to the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, that the petitioners had brought on record two orders of this Court in relation to co - accused Awadhesh Yadav, Govind Yadav @ Yogendra Yadav and Naga Yadav, who were enlarged on bail by this Court.

(3.) THIS fact is being noted by this Court out of anxious (s/c†''anxiety ?). When orders of superior court are cited, subordinate courts are expected to treat them with respect and follow them if they are unable to distinguish them. This fact must appear from the order sheet. When two orders were placed before the Court and the Court noticed the two orders of this Court, it had the duty to either follow the precedent in similar fact or bring on record to distinguish the same. It is these orders passed by the lower court, which appear to be responsible for bringing unnecessary litigation to this Court. It is expected that in future courts would be more careful in dealing with such matters when orders of this Court are produced before them.