Honble YADAV, J. – This criminal misc. petition has come up before the Court for disposal of a correction application. (2). It is alleged that the applicant filed a misc. petition for quashing the FIR before this Court which was dismissed on 16.5.1996 with a direction to her to surrender before the learned Magistrate and in case any bail application is moved on her behalf then the learned Magistrate was directed to decide the same expeditiously on merits. (3). It is argued before me that when the applicant moved an application for surrender before the learned Magistrate, he declined to hear the case as it was not falling within his power and jurisdiction to hear the case. It is also alleged that the learned Magistrate obser4ved that such application of surrender can be moved before the learned Sessions Judge only. (4). It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that thereafter the applicant moved bail application before the learned Sessions Judge but he also refused to entertain her bail application on the plea that since in my order dated 16.5.96 the expression `learned Magistrate has been used, therefore, he was not prepared to decide the bail application of the application on merits unless the order passed by this Court on 16.5.96 is corrected and in place of `learned Magistrate the expression `learned Sessions Judge is substituted. (5). A pointed question was asked to the learned counsel for the applicant as to why the instant application is not supported with an affidavit and as to why it is not accompanied with the application for surrender and order passed thereon by the learned Magistrate? It is also asked from the learned counsel for the applicant about surrender application, alleged to have been moved by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, and order passed thereon. (6). The learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to answer the aforesaid question. No where it is alleged in the application whether the case has been committed to the court of Session or it is still pending before the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to say anything about the actual state of affairs regarding pendency of enquiry before the learned Magistrate or about its committal proceeding. The learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to say anything about the actual state of affairs regarding pendency of enquiry before the learned Magistrate or about its committal proceeding. (7) In the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand I have no hesitation to hold that legitimately the High Court and the court of Session will be approached by an accused-applicant only after she has failed before the Magistrate under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The relevant considerations in granting or refusing bail under new Section 437(1) and 439(1) Cr.P.C. are common. Granting or refusing bail under Sec. 437(1) and under Sec. 439 (1) Cr.P.C. depends on the nature and gravity of circumstances in which offence is committed, likelihood of the accused jumping bail, chances of accused to repeat the offence or likelihood of tampering prosecution witnesses. It is true that it is not practically possible for this Court to enumerate a complete list of variable factors exhaustively which are to be taken into account while rejecting or granting bail either under Sec. 437(1) or under Sec. 439 (1) Cr.P.C. (8). My aforesaid views are buttressed from a decision rendered by their lord- ships of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh and Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1). (9). I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that moving an application before a Magistrate under Sec. 437 (1) Cr.P.C. is an empty formality, if offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life or such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable for death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment with seven years or more or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non-bailable and cognizable offence. (10). In my considered opinion, ordinarily in the first instance bail applications are to be moved in the court of learned Magistrates as envisaged under Sec. 437(1) Cr.P.C. and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable for the reason that the ratio decidendi of the decision rendered by their lordships of Honble Supreme Court in case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) is binding. It is to be imbibed by all that even obiter dicta of Honble Supreme Court is binding under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the ratio decidendi laid down by Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) is to be followed faithfully. The relevant observations made by Honble Supreme Court in para 24 of the aforesaid case reads thus :– `` xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx It is, how- ever, legitimate to suppose that the High Court or the Court of Session will be approached by an accused only after he has failed before the Magistrate and after the investigation has progressed throwing light on the evidence and circumstances implicating the accused. (11). It is made clear that in my order dated 16.5.96 the expression ``the lear- ned Magistrate is directed to decide the case expeditiously on merits does not convey the meaning as is being interpreted by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the aforesaid direction the learned Magistrate was bound to grant bail to the applicant. In fact the aforesaid expression merely convey a message to the learned Magistrate within the meaning of Sec. 483 Cr.P.C. to consider the bail application expeditiously on merits. It is crystal clear from my order dated 16.5.96 that the learned Magistrate was free either to grant or to refuse bail to the applicant under Sec. 437 Cr.P.C. including on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to grant bail in the present case. But in no circumstance he is entitled to decline to consider the bail application under Sec. 437 Cr.P.C. even if the case has been committed to the court of Sessions. He is at liberty to reject the bail application of the applicant in faithful compliance of the order dated 16.5.96, even on the ground that the case has been committed to the court of Session. If the case has not been committed to the court of Session, he is at liberty to reject the bail application on any other ground or grounds as he thinks fit and proper as envisaged under Sec. 437, Cr.P.C. (12). If the case has not been committed to the court of Session, he is at liberty to reject the bail application on any other ground or grounds as he thinks fit and proper as envisaged under Sec. 437, Cr.P.C. (12). In abundant caution, it is held that ordinarily, the learned Magistrates can grant bail binding the accused not only to appear before him but also to appear before the court of Session. The learned Magistrates are not precluded considering bail applications even in cases where the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Session in view of the mandatory provisions envisaged under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 441, Cr.P.C. under which bail can be granted to an accused so as to bind him to appear before the court of Session in which event on committal he would not have to be re-arrested and brought before the Court of Session. It is also clear from Sec. 209(b), Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail ``du- ring and until completion of trial even in cases where the offence is triable by the court of Session. (13). I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view from a decision rendered by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Free Legal Aid Committee, Jamshedpur vs. State of Bihar (2), where in para 2 it is ruled by their Lordships which reads thus:– ``xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx This situation can however easily be avoided because there is a provision in S. 441 sub-sec. (3) of the Cr.P.C. under which bail can be granted to an accused so as to bind him to appear before the Court of Session, in which event, on committal, he would not have to be re-arrested and brought before the Court of Session. It is also clear from s. 209 cl. (b) of the Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail ``during and until completion of trial even in cases where the offence is triable by the Court of Session. (14). It is also clear from s. 209 cl. (b) of the Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail ``during and until completion of trial even in cases where the offence is triable by the Court of Session. (14). Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Magistrate is hereby directed to entertain the surrender application moved on behalf of the applicant if case is pending before him but if it has been committed to the court of Session, he would transmit the surrender application and direct the accused applicant to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge where the case has been committed. As regards bail application, learned Magistrate is to ensure the faithful compliance of the order passed by this Court on 16.5.96 considering the bail application on merits which includes rejection of bail application for any reason which the learned Magistrate thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including rejection of bail application on the ground that he has become functus officio after committing the case to the court of Session. (15). Once the bail application is finally disposed of by learned Magistrate under Sec. 437 (1) Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge would be free to consider the bail application on merits as envisaged under Sec. 439(1) Cr.P.C. after going through the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh (supra). With these observations, the instant application for correction is hereby rejected. The Dy. Registrar (Judl.) is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Merta to ensure the compliance of the order dated 16.5.96, who in turn will also inform to the learned concerning Magistrate about the instant order.