Judgment 1. The two petitioners are in custody in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 120B and Sections 302 and 201 IPC were added later on, on recovery of the dead body of two persons. Petitioner No. 1 is named in the FIR and petitioner no. 2 has been named is course of investigation. 2. On behalf of petitioners, it is stated with reference to the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, that the petitioners had brought on record two orders of this Court in relation to co-accused Awadhesh Yadav, Govind Yadav @ Yogendra Yadav and Naga Yadav, who were enlarged on bail by this Court. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge without even noticing the facts of similarity or difference and without distinguishing the order of this court has rejected the bail though noticed the order of this Court in his order. 4. This fact is being noted by this Court out of anxious (s/canxiety ?). When orders of superior court are cited, subordinate courts are expected to treat them with respect and follow them if they are unable to distinguish them. This fact must appear from the order sheet. When two orders were placed before the Court and the Court noticed the two orders of this Court, it had the duty to either follow the precedent in similar fact or bring on record to distinguish the same. It is these orders passed by the lower court, which appear to be responsible for bringing unnecessary litigation to this Court. It is expected that in future courts would be more careful in dealing with such matters when orders of this Court are produced before them. 5. Let a copy of this order be circulated to all the District & Sessions Judges of the State for onwards communication for guidance of judicial officers in the courts below. 6. Considering the orders as passed in the two cases aforesaid, let petitioners, Babuni Yadav and Bijay Yadav, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10, 000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bhojpur, Ara, in Imadpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2006.