2022 (11) TMI 1533 - SCH - Indian Laws

Rejection of remand application made by the Police for remand of the petitioners - Non-service of notice - mandatory notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure was not issued to the accused persons - HELD THAT - Though, it is always said that the High Court is not a Court to subordinate to the Supreme Court. However, when the High Court deals with judgments of this Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect - the reasoning on which the revision has been allowed is also not sustainable. The petition is disposed off by observing that the observations made in the judgment in THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REPTD BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR SPE AND ACB CASES VERSUS RAMACHANDRA BARATHI @ SATHISH SHARMA V.K., AND TWO OTHERS 2022 (10) TMI 1262 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT which are contrary to the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar 2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT would not be treated as a binding precedent in the State of Telangana. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order of Single Judge
Rejection of remand application by Trial Judge
Application for bail considered and rejected
Observations made in Arnesh Kumar case
High Court's approach towards Supreme Court judgments
Quashing of Division Bench's judgment and orders

Analysis:
The petition challenged the judgment and order of a Single Judge of the High Court, which arose from the rejection of a remand application by the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge had denied remand based on the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State contested this decision, arguing that the principles from the Arnesh Kumar case were not applicable, while the accused relied on specific observations from the same case, particularly in paragraph 11.4. Following a subsequent order, the application for bail was considered and ultimately rejected, leaving the petitioners with the option to seek regular bail from the High Court.

The Supreme Court, after considering the matter, declined to entertain the petition. However, it criticized the High Court's handling of the case, deeming it untenable. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting judgments of the Supreme Court, which are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. It found the Single Judge's observations in the impugned judgment unwarranted and unsustainable, especially noting discrepancies with the Arnesh Kumar case. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, clarifying that conflicting observations would not be treated as binding precedent in the State.

Moreover, the Court granted permission for a special leave petition and urged a reevaluation of the case by the Single Judge without influence from the Division Bench's remarks. It also invalidated certain directions issued by the Division Bench, leading to the quashing of its judgment and orders. The Single Judge was instructed to consider the writ petitions filed by the petitioners promptly and in accordance with the law, preferably within four weeks. This request aimed to expedite the proceedings, particularly since the writ petitions were already scheduled for a hearing before the Single Judge. Ultimately, the special leave petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved.