Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Narain Singh Bhati Son Of Late Shri Hari ... on 28 August, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Writ Restoration Application No. 373/2018
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of
Police, Police Head Quarter, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director General Of Police (Intelligence),
Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Narain Singh Bhati Son Of Late Shri Hari Singh Ji, B/c
Rajput, Aged About 74 Years, 28, Ugam Path, Bani Park,
Jaipur. (Since Deceased).
2. Hanuwant Singh S/o Narain Singh Bhati, 28, Ugam Path,
Bani Park, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Mohd.
Shahid Hasan
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI
Order
28/08/2018
D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.656/2018:
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing D.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.373/2018 is condoned.
2. The application is allowed.
D.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.373/2018:
For the reasons mentioned in the application the order dismissing the appeal in default dated 06.02.2018 is recalled. The appeal is restored for hearing on merits.
(2 of 3) [WRES-373/2018] D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.1851/2017:
1. As regards the first respondent he having died nothing survives in the instant appeal. Issue concerns only respondent No.2 who is son of respondent No.1.
2. Respondent No.1 had exposed persons involved in kidnapping and terrorist activities. Respondent No.2, son of respondent No.1 was the City Magistrate at the relevant time.
3. On basis of information given by respondent No.1 the police recovered RDX, explosives, rifles, ammunition, remote control system and other sensitive material. One accused was found to be having links with terrorists abroad and it was found that other accused were absconders. Narain Singh Bhati was a witness. He approached the Court by way of a writ petition with the plea that his security was downgraded and he was issued a pistol which needs to be converted into an automatic weapon.
4. The impugned judgment sometimes uses the word singular for the petitioner and sometimes in the plural but a reading of the writ petition would show that the grievance concerning the pistol it related to the son.
5. The learned Single Judge has not granted relief by requiring upgradation of the security to the father and the son.
The only direction issued is that pistol should be replaced with an automatic weapon.
6. The pleadings of the parties are not clear as to what they meant by an automatic weapon but we understand it to mean that a firearm which is capable of firing more than one shot without the barrel being reloaded with a cartridge.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants states that appellants would be satisfied if it is clarified that the weapon of (3 of 3) [WRES-373/2018] defence required to be issued to the second respondent would be of a kind where more than one bullet can be loaded in the chamber/magazine and if first shot is fired, the cartridge is ejected automatically and another bullet from the magazine gets loaded in the barrel, so that in rapid succession shots can be fired if need be by the second respondent should he be attacked.
8. We clarify as prayed for by the appellants. The appellants would look into the pistol which was issued, if the pistol does not have a self loading facility, it would be replaced either by pistol or a revolver, where self loading facility exists.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ KKC/3 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)