← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/2341/2015dismissed

Mukesh Luthra v. State Of Haryana

2015-02-06Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-2341 of 2015 Date of Decision: February 06, 2015 Mukesh Luthra

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.365 dated 28.11.2013 under Sections 306 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The first bail petition of the petitioner has already been decided on merit by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2014. It has been observed in that order that the present accused along with coaccused hatched a criminal conspiracy which abetted the commission of suicide of deceased ASI Karan Singh. In the suicide note, there are allegations against the present petitioner. At the time of passing of the above-said order, it was brought to the notice of the Court that VINEET GULATI 2015.02.11 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-2341 of 2015 -2arrest warrants of the petitioner have already been issued. The petitioner is clearly evading the arrest and chosen not to join the investigation.

Now, again anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner without showing any changed circumstances. As it has already been held in the order dated 28.03.2014 that the petitioner is evading his arrest and at that time, non-bailable warrants have been issued and the petitioner is avoiding to join the investigation, now after ten months, the position is the same. The petitioner is still evading the arrest and not joining the investigation.

In view of the above, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

February 06, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.02.11 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh