GULAB GUPTA, J. ( 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 and 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. 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. 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. ( 4 ) THIS Court regretfully notes that this is not the only case where office of S. P. is showing indifference to the process of this Court. Many other such cases have come to this Court's notice. In a case recently disposed of by this Court, S. P. , Raipur had intimated to this Court that his office was not able to serve this Courts notice at Saraipali, because it was situated at a distance of 90 kms. from Raipur. Many other such cases have come to this Court's notice. In a case recently disposed of by this Court, S. P. , Raipur had intimated to this Court that his office was not able to serve this Courts notice at Saraipali, because it was situated at a distance of 90 kms. from Raipur. There appears to be the general trend of non-cooperation by S. P. S. compelling this Court to either devise a new methodology for service of its processes or otherwise deal with such cases, in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THIS Court would like to ask itself whether it is possible to give relief to the applicant State in this case without serving notice and granting hearing to the non-applicant? Since the State wants the non-applicant to be8. rrested and committed to judicial custody during trial, the matter is regulated by Article-21 of the Constitution, which obliges this Court to pass an order not only in accordance with law, but also by following a just and reasonable procedure. It is basic to our criminal jurisprudence that a person against whom as order is sought, must be heard. Clearly, therefore, passing an order against the non-applicant, without giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard, will be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, this Court would not be able to accept the request of the applicant State in the matter and cancel the impugned order. ( 6 ) IN spite of it, this Court would like to see if the impugned-order is illegal and unjustified. Section 437 (1), Cr. P. C. bars grant of bail to an accused person in cases where there are reasonable grounds to hold commission of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life the non- applicant is prime facie charged with an offence under section 302 read with section 149, I. P. C. and hence it will require examination whether there are reasonable grounds to hold that he was not involved in the said offence. Unfortunately, the impugned-order does not say even a single word about it. The order, on the contrary, relies on order dated 16-2-1990 passed in favour of Daddusingh. A copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure- A and indicates that this nonapplicant was one of the persons participating in the beating of Sardar Khan. Unfortunately, the impugned-order does not say even a single word about it. The order, on the contrary, relies on order dated 16-2-1990 passed in favour of Daddusingh. A copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure- A and indicates that this nonapplicant was one of the persons participating in the beating of Sardar Khan. He was, however, not the person inflicting fatal blow on his head, which was done by co-accused Gyansingh by using the axe. The non-applicant is alleged to have used a lathies. The deceased had two contusions and two abrasions on his person, which apparently indicates that lathi was used to caused injuries on him. In spite of it, it is true that the injury caused by the lathi was not the fatal injury. It is necessary that the non-applicant should have been responsible for the fatal below for being punished order section with the help of section 149, I. P. C. ? This Court would answer the question in negative. If the learned Sessions Judge had taken note of section 149, I. P. C. , he would have surely reached this very conclusion. Unfortunately, he had not taken note of this provision and had made the mistake. Then, his observation that there was no implicatery evidence of any type against the non-applicant is based on his apparent finding in the case of Daddusingh. While deciding the case of Daddusingh, the learned Sessions Judge was not considering this nonappellents case and hence it was obligatory for the learned Sessions Judge to consider allegations against this non-applicant separately. Since this exercise has not been under-taken, the impugnedorder is based on no finding whatsoever. Apparently, therefore, it is an order, which is not only contrary to law, but which appears to have been passed only because the learned Sessions Judge has even, without taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the non-applicant and others, had decided to grant bail to him. Such an order is wholly Unjustified and was the proper subject matter of section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. It would, therefore, appear that the applicant State was fully justified in making this application. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has also not taken note of the fact that the offence was committed at a public bus stand and the deceased was dragged out of the bus by four persons and assaulted by six. P. C. It would, therefore, appear that the applicant State was fully justified in making this application. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has also not taken note of the fact that the offence was committed at a public bus stand and the deceased was dragged out of the bus by four persons and assaulted by six. Committing offence in a public place in the aforesaid manner only indicates that the accuse persons are dare-devils, having no regard to law. In such cases, discretion to grant bail should never have been exercised in favour of accused persons, as it has the affect of undermining the efficacy of law and demoralising the society. Public interest, which is an important consideration, in such matters, must get priority, because of our constitutional committent to social justice. This Court is inclined to feel that the conduct of learned Sessions Judge in granting bail in the aforesaid manner is itself questionable, deserving little serious administrative probe. ( 8 ) IN spite of the aforesaid, this Court would not be able to set-aside the impugned-order, in the absence of notice and hearing to the non-applicant. This Court would also not like to keep the matter pending as it has no hope of notices being served with the help of S. P. , Sama. This Court also feels that the State cannot get any concession from this Court in this matter, as its own officials are responsible for obstructing the course of justice and the process of this Court and hence it is for them to take action against the S. P. , Satna for his derelicting in duty and concooperative attitude with this Court If they are able to put their own house in order, they would be in a position to file a fresh application requesting this Court to initiate action in the matter, in accordance with law. .