Bombay HC: Under which circumstances order passed by high court in bail application should not be treated as precedent?

  In so far as the judgment in the case of Manjubhai Rokde and Vinod Ramchandra Gupta (supra) are concerned, it needs to be noted that in both the orders no principle of law arose for consideration and no principle of law was laid down. It is well settled that an order of bail application is summary in nature based on summary facts which can never be relied as a precedent or can be cited as an authority laying down proposition of law by this Court unless and until principle of law arise for consideration and the order lays down principle of law. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. The essence of a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what legally follows from the observations made in the order. A case cannot be an authority on the point of a fact. Each case has to be decided in the light of circumstances existing in it. A precedent is a judicial decision which lays down a principle of law. Generally bail orders in their operative part proceed on peculiar facts of each case. Sometimes facts are not stated in the order considering complexity of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, generally bail orders without laying down principle of law cannot be regarded as an authority on a point of fact. Therefore, in my opinion, both the judgments cited by the advocate for the applicant in the absence of proposition of law being decided cannot be treated as a precedent laying down principle of law. The orders relied upon by the applicant, therefore, are of no help to the applicant. {Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 189 of 2023 and 616 of 2023

Decided On: 16.06.2023

Eknath Bhalchandra Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Amit B. Borkar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/5594/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page