( 1 ) WHETHER the applicants who apprehend arrest on the charge of non-cognizable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail pending investigation is a question to be answered in this application.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. K. J. Shethna for the applicants, learned A. P. P. Shri M. A. Bukhari for the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 - state and the Investigating Officer and learned Advocate Mr. P. M. Thakkar for the original complainant-father of the victim. Mr. Thakkar is given audiance with a positive understanding that he has no locus standi, but, only on humanitarian ground representing the father of the victim.

( 3 ) BEFORE the application be decided on merits, it is necessary to decide as to which of the judgments - Gurbakshsingh v. State of Punjab and Haryana, (AIR 1980 SC 1632) should be followed or Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan (1987 Supp SCC 549) is required to be followed as both form precedent under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. It is known that a pronouncement of law by Division Bench of the Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges and in order that such decision be binding, it is not necessary that it should be a decision rendered by the Full court or a Constitutional Bench of the Court. The judgment in the case of gurbakshsingh is a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of five Judges, while the judgment in Kiren Devi case (supra) is rendered by a Division Bench of two Judges. It will also be pertinent to state that the question before both the Benches was whether the accused if apprehends arrest on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail or not. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghuvirsingh (AIR 1989 SC 1933) has observed in answer to the question as to the effect of law pronounced by the Division Bench in relation to a case raising same points subsequently before the Division Bench, before a smaller number of Judges. The Supreme Court has observed :"there is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the Courts sanctified by repeated affirmation over a century of time. It cannot be doubted that in order to promote consistency and certainty in the law laid down by a Superior Court, the ideal condition would be that the entire Court should sit in all cases to decide questions of law, and for that reason the Supreme Court of the United States does so. But having regard to the volume of work demanding the attention of the Court, it has been found necessary in India as a general rule of practice and convenience that the Court should sit in Divisions, each Division being constituted of Judges whose number may be determined by the exigencies of judicial need, by the nature of the case including any statutory mandate relative thereto, and by such other considerations which the chief Justice, in whom such authority devolves by convention, may find most appropriate. It is in order to guard against the possibility of inconsistent decisions on points of law by different Divisions of inconsistent decisions on points of law by different Division Benches that the rule has been evolved, in order to promote consistency and certainty in the development of the law and its contemporary status, that the statement of the law by a Division Bench is considered binding on a Division bench of the same or lesser number of Judges. This principle has been followed in India by several generations of Judges. "it is not necessary that it be a decision rendered by the Full Court or a Constitutional Bench of the Court. Keeping this in mind, thus, it is clear that the pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court in Gurhakshsingh case (supra) is a precedent to be followed by this Court.

( 4 ) IN Kiran Devi case (supra), without discussing any facts of the case and refer