IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-33709 of 2011 Date of decision : November 26, 2011 Sadhram @ Sadram and another ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Sadhram @ Sadram and Prashar have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 133 dated 17.8.2011 under section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Faridabad District GRP Ambala Cantt. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Ranbir since deceased had left behind suicide note naming the petitioners as well who forced him to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners have not been named as persons who forced the deceased to commit suicide or who cheated the deceased and therefore, petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail. Criminal Misc. No. M-33709 of 2011 -2- I have carefully considered the matter. This is second petition for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners. Their earlier petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.10.2011 when learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing for some time sought permission to withdraw the said petition. In view thereof, the instant second petition for anticipatory bail does not lie because the petitioners in spite of dismissal of their earlier petition for anticipatory bail had not surrendered to the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier the suicide note was not with the petitioners but now they have got the copy of the suicide note. This cannot be said to be new circumstance to entitle the petitioners to file second petition for anticipatory bail because the suicide note could be perused by the Court from the police file. Previous petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed as withdrawn after notice of motion and after appearance of State counsel. Consequently, it cannot be said that at that time suicide note was not available. Even otherwise, keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioners in the suicide note and the FIR read together, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 26, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'