The Magistrate, Police, and trial Judges have specific duties and responsibilities in ensuring the prompt execution of non-bailable warrants of arrest and taking appropriate action against absconding accused.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. How does one react to a situation which permits years to slip by for carrying out of a ministerial act of issuing warrant of arrest, in spite of series of judicial orders, to be executed by the Officers-in-charge of a Police Station and further allows memory to wither so that each one at the centre-stage forgets that an accused has to be brought before the Court within a reasonable time to face his trial and treats passing of a year as if it is a day ? And how, pray, does one appreciate the attitude of gross negligence which ostracises the vision of vigil and perpetuate the sin of procrastination for a long eighteen years ? To put it plainly, it cannot be tolerated.

2. This application seeking privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') would ordinarily have been disposed of without examination and contemplation; probe and deliberation; and study and scrutiny as the learned counsel for the applicant, after tremendous endeavour to convince the Court, eventually realising the unsoundness of his contentions sought permission to withdraw the application, and in usual course the prayer for withdrawal would have been allowed in open Court and that would have allowed the matter to rest but, alas, that could not be done as the factual matrix exposited a different picture - a picture quite disturbing revealing dents in the criminal adjudication system which cannot be witnessed with philosophical poise or negligent attitude of playing possum or for that matter with apathetic nictitation. Let it not be understood that I am not inclined to grant permission for withdrawing the application. The permission I do grant but I cannot be oblivious of the facts which have come to the notice of this Court. Hence, while granting permission to the learned counsel for the applicant seek his remedy as permitted under law I think it is apposite to deal with the other aspects which deserve delineation.

3. The facts in detail:

The applicant was arrayed as an accused in connection with Crime No. 268/81 of Lordganj Police Station, Jabalpur instituted for offences punishable under Sections 394 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Being apprehensive of arrest in the aforesaid crime the applicant filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the Court of Session forming subject-matter of M.Cr.C. No. 409/81 which, eventually, came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who allowed the same and granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the applicant by order dated 11-5-81. The charge-sheet was filed on 30-12-81. On that day the co-accused, Munna Pandit, was produced in custody. The applicant and another co-accused who had availed the anticipatory bail were not present. The learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. At this juncture, it is necessary to clarify that as I have granted permission to Mr. S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant, to withdraw the petition, I am refraining myself from commenting on the propriety, validity and legality of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The mention of the aforesaid fact has only been made to indicate that the learned Magistrate issued warrants of arrest against the present applicant.

4. To continue the narration, a sad one, the learned Magistrate directed for issuance of warrant on 30-12-81 but the same was not issued on that date. The learned Magistrate kept on directing for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant and eventually, the warrants were issued on 25-2-84 i.e., almost 26 months after the direction was passed by the learned Magistrate. As the warrants were not executed a direction for issue of fresh warrants was given on 9-5-84. As the order sheet shows, the warrants were actually issued on 26-9-86, virtually after two years from the date of issuance of the direction. On 9-1-87 again a fresh non-bailable warrant of