STATE OF M P Vs. GOVIND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-applicant Govind Prasad is an accused in Crime No. 3/90 registered at Police Station Saleha; district Panna Under Sections 302, 120-B, 147, 148 & 149, I.P.C. and is alleged to be responsible for brutally murdering one Sardar Khan on 6-1-1990 at the Bus Stand, after dragging him out of the bus. Before this non-applicant could be apprehended by the police, he filed an application under section 438, Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Panna requesting anticipatory bail on the ground that he has to appear in the Intermediate Examination, likely to commence from 2-4-1990. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge had considered a similar request from co-accused Daddusingh and granted anticipatory bail to him. He, therefore, referred to the order in Daddusinghs case and held that, there appeared to be hardly any implicatory evidence of any type as against the applicant in the DiaryT and directed his release on anticipatory bail. The State feels aggrieved by this order and prays that it be cancelled exercising powers under section 439(2), Cr.P.C.

(2.) This application was admitted for final hearing on 6-7-1990 and notice sent to the non-applicant. Office file indicates that the notice was sent to Superintendent of Police, Satna for service, in accordance with the established procedure, on 12-7-1990. It may be noticed that though the case is from District Panna, the notice was sent to the S.P., Satna, because the non-applicant is a resident of Nagod, falling within his jurisdiction. The office means to have waited for quite some time, but failed to get any reply from the S.P. about service. A fresh notice was also issued on 1.9.1990 along with one memo to the S.P. requesting him to take steps to serve the notice on the non-applicant and intinate the court about it Sessions Judge, Penna and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna were also informed about it. Even this second notice was not returned after service. There was really no response from the S .P. The matter was thereafter listed for orders of this Court on 23.1.1991, when this Court felt that it would be just and proper to issue a non- bailable warrant for arrest of the non-applicant. This Court also requested Shri L.S. Singh, Govt. Advocate to help this Court in executing the warrant. The Office note indicates that the warrant was sent to the S.P., Satna for execution. This Court, however, heard nothing from S.P., Satna about it. On 13.2.199 1, the matter was again listed before this Court for necessary orders in the matter. On that date, Shri L.S. Singh, Government Advocate informed this Court that the Office of Advocate General had requested S.P., Satna to get the nonapplicant arrested in pursuance to the warrant issued by this Court, but his Office has also not received any information. This Court, therefore, observed that silence of the S.P., Satna is likely to give rise to the suspicion that police was harbouring the offender this Court, therefore, issued a notice to the S.P., Satna to appear in this Court on 25.2.91 and explain his stanl on the matter. It appears that after this order, the S.P., Satna searched out the warrant issued by this Court and returned the same unserved on 18-2-91 with the endorsement that it could not be served, as there was not enough time for the purpose. Shri Rajiv Mathur, S.P., Satna personally appeared in this Court on 25-2-91 and filed a written reply indicating that the service of warrant could not be effected because it was received late in his office. He however, stated nothing about the service of notice sent to his office earlier. He also stated at the Bar that the job of serving notices/warrants sent by this Court is done by the office of A.P.P., who is no longer under his administrative control. He made this Court feel that unless administrative control over the office of A.P.P. is restored. notices/warrants of this Court would continue to meet the same fate as in this case. He had no regards nor any remorse for the delay in disposal of this case. When told that this being a case filed by the State might be dismissed for want of service, he remained expressionless. Apparently there is no offer by him of co-operation with this Court in service of notice. This Court is. therefore helpless in the matter. Since Office of Advocate General is also helpless in the matter this Court has to consider the consequences of this helplessness in this case.

(3.) Indifference verging on disrespect to this Court's process and the rule of law as displayed by Shri Rajiv Mathur in this case. when considered in the context of the fact that this is States application, makes this Court feel that District Police is on warpath with Vallabh Bhawan, the seat of power in the State which decided to file this application. The State should be as much concerned with it as this Court and take serious note of it. This Court would hopefully think that Shri Rajiv Mathur and his office at Satna does not represent the general attitude of the police either against the State or this Court. The helplessness of this Court should cause flutter in the circle that believes that judiciary in this country is independent. This constitutional faith has in fact become a casualty in this case, which illustrates the fragile nature and aspect of independence of judiciary. Since this independence is very dear to us, it is not possible to make it depend on the police officials, however honest, hard working and sincere they may be.