STATE OF M P Vs. GIYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is States application u/s 4 39(2) Cr.P.C. praying that bail granted to the non-applicants is not only illegal but also wholly unjustified and hence should be revoked and they be ordered to be sent to judicial custody pending trial.

(2.) The non-applicants are accused of killing one Sardar Khan at a public bus stand on 6-1-1990 and were wanted by the police authorities at Saleha Dist. Panna in connection with Crime No. 3/90 under Sections 302, 120-B, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. They could not be arrested inspite of serious efforts by the police. Apprehending their arrest, they move an application alongwith one Daddu Singh, u/s 433, Cr. P.C. for anticipatory bail. On 16-2-1990, when the said application came ,up for hearing before the Sessions Judge, Panna, it was withdrawn by these applicants. The learned Sessions Judge granted bail to Daddu Singh. Order in so far as Daddu Singh is concerned is not under challenge. It appears that these applicants again moved the learned Session Judge for grant of anticipatory bail to them. On 20-3-1990 when the said application came up for hearing, the non-applicants appeared in the Court and stated that they be treated in judicial custody. Their application was therefore treated as one under Sec. 439, Cr.P.C. and decided by the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge held that Non-applicant has actually cause death of Sardar Khan by hitting on his head with an axe and hence he was not entitled to bail on merits. The learned Judge however relying on a certificate issued by a Child Specialist Dr. R. Garg issued on 7-3-1990 held that he was suffering from hypertension and mental depression and hence deserved temporary bail. This non-applicant was therefore granted bail till 24-3-1990. Shri S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for this nonapplicant stated at the Bar that this non-applicant has surrendered on the due date and is no longer free. Shri Kochar was however not able to state anything else about this non applicant. The learned Sessions Judge, in so far as N.A. Swatantra Kumar is concerned held that there was not much material on record to connect him with the fatal blow and held that he was entitled to bail. This order is impugned in this application.

(3.) After this Court admitted this application for hearing on merits, it directed notices to be served on the non-applicants. NA Gyan Singh has been served and is represented by Sri S.L. Kochar Advocate. It now appears that N.A. Swatantra Kumar was also served on 13-9-90, but did not care to either appear or be represented. The fact of this service of notice on this NA was not on record on 23-1-1991 when this application came up for final hearing. This Court therefore directed that a non-bailable warrant of arrest of this N.A. shall be issued and sent to S.P., Satna for arresting and producing him in this Court on 31-1-91. This court had no information about service of either this non bailable warrant or earlier notice on 13-2-1991 when this application was again listed for hearing. Even on 13-2-1991 this Court was not informed of service of notice or warrant on this non-applicant. This Court had on 31-1-1991 requested the learned Government Advocate, Shri L.S. Singh to help it in serving warrant or notice on this NA and Shri L.S. Singh promised to personally inform the S.P. Satna about it. On 13-2-1991 even the learned Government Advocate was helpless and only informed this Court that S.P. Satna has been informed not only by a wireless message but also by phone. He was also surprised at the silence of the S.P. about the matter. This court therefore issued a notice to the S.P. Satna intimating that this Court was inclined to feel that his office, by not serving notice warrant on the non-applicant, was trying to shield him and was therefore interfering with the work of this Court. He was required to appear in this Court on 25-2-1991 and explain why suitable action be not taken in the matter.