Devender Singh Lakra v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-35895 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2018 Devender Singh Lakra

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr.Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.249 dated 08.07.2018 under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-56, Gurugram. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Yuvraj Sharma, who deposed that his father VINEET GULATI 2018.09.24 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-35895 of 2018 -2committed suicide on 04.07.2018 by shooting himself from his revolver in his office. The police found a suicide note to the effect that he is taking extreme step and only Devender Lakra and his whole family, who are residing in H.No.663, Mundka Delhi, are responsible for it. He has also attached declaration-cum-affidavit, in which there is full details as to how, the above-said family has looted and destroyed him. It is also in the suicide note that he suffered harassment by visiting Court for the last six years. It is also in the detailed suicide note that some questions as mentioned therein, be asked when Devender Lakra comes to the Court as a witness. The perusal of the record shows that main accused is present petitioner Devender Singh Lakra and serious allegations have been levelled against him.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and nature and gravity of the offence, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to him.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

September 12, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.09.24 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh