Every Judgment Has To Be Seen To Its Context, Precedents Cannot Be Applied Universally: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that precedents cannot be applied universally to every case. The Court further added that every Judgment has to be seen to its own context and facts.
"…every judgement has to be seen to its own context and facts and the precedents cannot be applied universally to every case.'', the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed.
The Court was dealing with an application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the applicants- Lakhan Singh and Dinesh.
Advocate P.K. Singh and Advocate Vijay Kumar Mishra appeared for the applicants whereas Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the informant. AGA Vibhav Anand Singh appeared for the State.
As per the prosecution story, the informant is a farmer by profession and he is even involved in the cultivation of agricultural land of his brother-in-law Lokendra Singh and gets the benefit thereon.
The applicants and other co-accused persons are stated to have illegally sold the potatoes thereby defrauded the informant.
The counsel for the applicants stated that the present FIR has been instituted against the applicants out of vengeance. It was submitted that the informant is the relative of another person who has registered another FIR against the applicants on almost identical allegations.
The counsel for applicants placed much reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court passed in Upkar Singh Versus Ved Prakash and Others, wherein it has been laid down that the legal right of an aggrieved person to file counter case is permissible.
The counsel for the applicants also relied upon another Judgment of the Apex Court passed in T.T. Antony etc. Versus State of Kerala and Others, wherein it has categorically been stated that the second FIR with respect to the same offence is barred.
So far as the proceedings of Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. are concerned, the counsel for the applicants also relied upon the Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Suresh Babu Versus State of U.P. and Another, wherein it has been stated that when the investigation is going on against a Government Servant and the proceedings u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. have been undertaken, the accused person is entitled for anticipatory bail.
The Court observed that the Judgments of Upkar Singh (supra) and T.T. Antony (supra) do not help the applicants at all as the said Judgments are not applicable to the present case wherein it has categorically been held that second FIR is not barred although, the said facts are different as it pertains to a cross-case.
So far as the applicability of the Judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Suresh Babu (supra) in the present case is concerned, the Court observed that the said Judgment also does not help the applicants at all as the accused person in the said case had no criminal history and was a Government Servant and, thus, he was granted anticipatory bail.
The Court held that precedents cannot be applied universally to every case.
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. The anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.", the Court concluded.
Cause Title- Lakhan Singh and Another v. State of U.P and Another