Uttarakhand High Court
Deepak Jain vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 January, 2014
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
(1) Bail application No.467 of 2013
IN
Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2013
Deepak Jain ............... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
...... Respondent
(2) Bail application No.466 of 2013
IN
Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2013
Deepak Jain ............... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
...... Respondent
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Tiwari and Mr. Rajesh Sharma,
Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. H.O. Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J.
Since both the applications are of same accused, hence they are being decided together by this common judgment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the incident, in question, occurred on 21.07.2010 at 10:30 P.M. in the corridor of Aroma Classic Hotel based at Rudrapur. It has been stated that on that day, father Jai Chand Jain and his two sons Chiraj Jain & Deepak Jain along with son-in-law Pulkit Jain, for some business purposes, came to meet two customers, namely, Prem Prakash Rastogi and Dinesh Kumar Rastogi, who too were got stayed in a room of that hotel by these accused persons. In this case injured Naresh Babbar is the hotel owner. After the conference finished with their customers, all the accused persons came out and began to talk mutually in a loud manner. The hotelier/injured came at the spot to check the 2 accused persons and asked them not to talk loudly. After a verbal spatting, the quarrel escalated. In that sequence, Jaichand caught hold of one arm while accused Pulkit Jain caught hold of another arm of Naresh Babbar whereas Chirag and Deepak Jain remain standing in that assembly. Further, Jaichand handed over his revolver to his son Deepak Jain (applicant) and exhorted him to open fire upon Naresh Babbar. Applicant, in compliance of directions of his father, opened three fires one after the other. One fire hit just upper portion of peter and the bullet went inside. Second fire touching the arm, also went inside and the third bullet could not hit the body of victim but hit the wall of corridor.
Two bullets were recovered from the body of injured in the medical examination and the third bullet was also got recovered after ten days from the wall of corridor by the Investigating Officer. The F.S.L. report suggests that one bullet matches to have been fired with the same revolver owned by Jai Chand while two bullets could not be assured to have been fired with the same weapon.
Injured Naresh Babbar and one independent witness Harish Grover are the main prosecution witnesses, whose evidence has been made the basis for conviction by the trial court.
The Court restrains itself to discuss the entire merits of the case but it can be thought of that of at least one i.e. Pulkit Jain, who has been specifically named not only in the first information report but in the evidence of both the factual witnesses, has been exonerated even by the Investigating Officer, and it was argued that he was absolved from being implicated only for the reason that at the relevant time, he was travelling in Metro Train in Delhi city.
It was also argued by learned senior counsel that the applicant was arrested on 26.7.2010 and during trial, he was 3 granted bail. The impugned judgment rendered by the court below dated 22.03.2013 and when the case was taken up by this Court, it was observed on 12.04.2013, by another Judge of this Court, that : -
"In the opinion of this Court sincere efforts should be made to hear and decide the appeal on merit at the earliest. Therefore, Registry is directed to prepare the paper book, in any case, within two weeks from today and hand over the copy of the paper book to the learned counsel for the parties. However, it is made clear, if appeal is not heard within next three months, for no fault of the counsel for the appellant, bail application shall be heard on merit"
The paper book of the case was prepared in the month of May, 2013 but the case could not be adjudicated for whatsoever reasons.
Learned prosecutor has also pointed out that there is no urgency in the matter for hearing this application during the vacation. The Court is conscious of the fact that his bail application is pending since April, 2013 but neither his bail application is being heard nor the case is being adjudicated by this Court.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant lastly argued that co-accused Chirag Jain and Jaichand Jain have been granted bail by this Court.
So looking to the above facts and circumstances, the applicant Deepak Jain is also admitted on bail in connection with S.T. No.318 of 2010 u/s 307 IPC and S.T. No.317/2010 u/s 27 Arms Act, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned, who after 4 acceptance of bail bonds, will forward the papers to be placed in the appeal file.
Both the bail applications are allowed accordingly.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 30-01-2014 Vacation Judge Rdang