(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) Office had submitted note dated 03.02.2011 and following order was passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice (as he then was):
"Before D.B. presided by Hon'ble Jayant Patel, J."
The matter was accordingly placed before the bench (Coram:Jayant Patel and Paresh Upadhyay, J.J.) during earlier sitting prior to summer vacation.
The matter is now placed before us for ascertaining whether the matter was heard in part before our bench.
It is true that Criminal Appeal No. 2124, 2196, 2195, 5178 and 2180 of 2008 were heard by us and on the last working day, before summer vacation, but at that stage, it was noticed that the counsel for A12 Dharmendra - appellant of Criminal Appeal No.2180/08 had to argue the matter and further in all the five appeals, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani was also to be heard. As per estimate of time required, Mr.A.D. Shah wanted 1 ½ day and Mr. Jani, learned Special Public Prosecutor wanted one week for completion of their submission. Further, the hearing of acquittal appeal preferred by the State as well as the another acquittal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.2423/08 preferred by the State for acquittal of the accused for the offence under section 306 was also to be simultaneously heard and further two days required for such acquittal appeals. At that stage, having realised that the matter is yet to be heard for number of days, when the issue of treating the matter as part heard was deliberated, the same was objected on behalf of the accused nos. 2 and 3.
Under these circumstances, we found it proper not to treat the matter as part heard. It appears that thereafter the present note has been submitted.
We may also record that as per the information supplied to us by the office, after the matter was not treated as part heard, CRLMP No. 12932/12 appears to have been preferred by the accused no.4 of Criminal Appeal No.2178/08 before the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.05.2012 has passed the following order -
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve upon Standing Counsel for the State.
Petitioner has applied for grant of interim bail, as according to him, even though his Criminal Appeal is being heard by the High Court, but has not yet been concluded and it is not known by what time it is likely to be concluded On 6.7.2010, following order was passed by this Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6330/2009 and 6137/2009:
"We are not inclined to grant bail in this matter. The special leave petitions are dismissed. However, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the order. If the matter is not disposed of within six months, then the accused may apply fresh application for bail."
Aforesaid order shows that the petitioner's appeal was directed to be disposed of within a period of six months from the said date. But it is not yet been disposed of. It has also been contended that petitioner is in jail for the last more than eight years. It has further been contended that looking to the ill health of petitioner's mother and minor daughter, it is desirable that the petitioner should be released on bail.
On consideration of the facts and features of the matter, we direct that the petitioner - Sajal Suresh Kumar Jain be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing bail bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
List immediately after service of notice is complete."
Thereafter, the present note appears to have been filed.
As recorded earlier, the matter was not treated as part heard by our Bench.
Office to place the order before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) *bjoy Top