Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dev Raj and Another Vs. State of Haryana

Dev Raj and Another vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 22, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1066757

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dev Raj and Another

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....as well as, mother-in- law usha and her husband. injuries were given and mlr has been placed on the file. however, the matter was compromised on 8.5.2012 vide annexure p-5. it is further submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated and they are in custody since 4.8.2012 and the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date. learned state counsel has opposed the bail application. rama the main accused i.e.wife of the deceased is in custody. the allegation against the petitioners is that they used to maltreat the deceased and on that account deceased rakesh kumar has committed suicide. admittedly, there was matrimonial dispute crl.m.not m- 5135 of 2013 -3- between rakesh kumar and rama. petitioners being the parents of rama had to intervene. the question whether their act has culminated into the ingredients of offence under section 306 ipc, is to be determined during the cours.of trial. the petitioners are in custody since 4.8.2012. so, without commenting on the merits of the case, bail is granted to both the petitioners dev raj and swarna to the satisfaction of the trial court. ( k.c.puri ) 22.3.2013 judge chugh

Full Judgment

Crl.M.not M- 5135 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.not M- 5135 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision :

22. 3.2013 ..Dev Raj and another ................Petitioners versus State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.C.Puri Present: Sh.

P.S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Sh.

Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana..K.C.Puri, J.

Petitioners - Dev Raj and Swarna have applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No.64 dated 21.5.2012 under Section 306 IPC, registered at police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala.

The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Pankaj Kumar brother of the deceased, who has stated that Rakesh Kumar, his brother was married to Rama Devi about 5 years back.

Both of the brothers were working together in the same shop but were residing separately in a rented house and his mother is living with the Crl.M.not M- 5135 of 2013 -2- younger brother in the ancestral house.

For the last about one month there was a dispute between the deceased and his wife Rama and family members of Rama, including petitioneRs.her brother Rinku and brother-in-law Dinesh, visited their house and gave beatings to his brother and mother.

Many a times panchayats were convened but their behaviour had not improved.

On 21.5.2012 there was dispute between the deceased and his wife Rama and Rama called her family members by making a phone call at about 2.00 P.M.Rama's father Dev Raj and mother Swarna Devi present petitioneRs.and other relatives alongwith brother-in-law of Rama insulted Rakesh and thereafter time of 8 days was fixed between both the parties for reconciliation.

At about 6.00 P.M.the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 7.5.2012 Rama was beaten by the complainant, as well as, mother-in- law Usha and her husband.

Injuries were given and MLR has been placed on the file.

However, the matter was compromised on 8.5.2012 vide Annexure P-5.

It is further submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated and they are in custody since 4.8.2012 and the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date.

Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.

Rama the main accused i.e.wife of the deceased is in custody.

The allegation against the petitioners is that they used to maltreat the deceased and on that account deceased Rakesh Kumar has committed suicide.

Admittedly, there was matrimonial dispute Crl.M.not M- 5135 of 2013 -3- between Rakesh Kumar and Rama.

Petitioners being the parents of Rama had to intervene.

The question whether their act has culminated into the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC, is to be determined during the couRs.of trial.

The petitioners are in custody since 4.8.2012.

So, without commenting on the merits of the case, bail is granted to both the petitioners Dev Raj and Swarna to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

( K.C.Puri ) 22.3.2013 Judge chugh

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial