- (1.) On an earlier occasion, we had issued bailable warrants against the accused person, Respondent 2. In spite of the order, Pushpanjali Sahu v. State of Orissa, SLP (Cri) No. 4235 of 2011, order dated 4-4-2012 (SC) wherein it was directed: "In spite of service of notice, Respondent 2 has not chosen to appear before this Court. Therefore, we have no other option but to issue bailable warrants against Respondent 2 and he shall appear before this Court on 16-4-2012. Call on 16-4-2012." The Registrar of the Supreme Court Registry had passed the following directions on 25-7-2011 : "1. Fresh notice be forwarded to the investigating agency concerned with specific direction to confirm the notice either directly upon the respondent or through the local process server of the local civil court, who is directed to confirm service even by affixing the same at the given address, if it could not be served in due course.
(2.) Additional dasti notice be forwarded to the Court of SDJM, Keonjhar, Orissa with specific direction to confirm service upon the respondent herein through the College Authority and to enquire about the whereabouts of the respondent from such authority.
(3.) List again on 20-9-2011." passed by this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar, Odisha is not in a position to execute the said warrants, though he notes the place and address of the accused person. This only shows their total inefficiency. In view of that, we now issue non-bailable warrants against the accused person. We further direct the Superintendent of Police to execute the said warrants within a period of four weeks from today. 2. If, for any reason, the Superintendent of Police is not in a position to execute the non-bailable warrants issued by us, he shall be personally present before this Court on 13-8-2012 at 10.30 a.m. 3. Call the matter on 13-8-2012. The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha.;