Precedents

Precedents, in bail matters, are of no help to a party as they vary from case to case depending upon the facts of each case while the Court has to examine as to whether the accused had made out a case of further inquiry or not.

Neither in interpreting statutes nor precedents are Judges confined to the alternatives of blind, arbitrary choice, 'mechanical deduction' from rules with predetermined meaning.

Facts of two criminal cases seldom coincide, so each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of its own facts and circumstances.

Precedent will be applicable on a given case, when it will be on fours to the same.

Jurists and Judges possessed of rich experience and a long line of rulings in criminal cases tell us that there is hardly a criminal case which would be cent per cent identical on all fours to other case

Background and causes for commission of offence may differ from case to case

Ruling in one criminal case, therefore, is carefully considered before citing it as a precedent in its application to the other.

Everything said in a judgment more particularly in a criminal case must be understood with great particularity as having been said with reference to the facts of that particular case; it may be regarded as having a persuasive value rather than a binding precedent.

In case of conflict in views of the authorities the view beneficial to the accused should be followed.

In case of any conflict, judgment of larger Bench of Supreme Court prevails.

Cases already decided can hardly be of any assistance on account of the diverse nature and distinguishable features of each case and in such a situation rules or principles of general application cannot be laid down.

Leave granting order passed by Supreme Court cannot be given precedence over final judgment of the Supreme Court.

Judgment of larger Bench of Supreme Court would be preferred over the judgment of smaller Bench.

Every case of criminal nature is to be looked on its own facts and circumstances and rule of universal application cannot be deduced from the decision in a particular case.

Each and every case is to be decided on its own merits.

No authority binds a person or a Court on the point of fact which almost in every case differs from each other.

Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved.

Cases already decided by Supreme Court can hardly be of any assistance on account of the diverse nature and distinguishable features of each criminal case and in such situation rules or principles of general application cannot be-laid down.

High Court would be bound to follow judgments delivered by larger Benches of the apex Court.

In criminal matters particularly in bail matters the authority in one case has hardly any relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the other case.

Rule laid down in certain criminal case cannot be applied universally as every case proceeds on its own facts and circumstances which would hardly resemble with diverse facts of the precedent case.