CRM No.M-34068 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-34068 of 2010 Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Ram Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) By invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioners-Ram Singh and his wife Smt.Imrati, have applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.505 dated 07.10.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. 2. Succinctly, the prosecution claimed that the marriage of Sushma (deceased) was solemnised with Sanjay Singh son of Ram Singh, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies in the year 2003. According to the prosecution, she was being constantly harassed for dowry by her mother-in-law-Imrati, father-in- law-Ram Singh-petitioners and sister-in-law-Lali @ Sanju. On account of excessive trouble, Sushma committed suicide, ended her life and of both of her daughters, by consuming/administering poison(sulphos tablet). On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-Ramesh Kumar, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, after going CRM No.M-34068 of 2010 2 through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 4. Ex facie, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant, therefore, they are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioners that they treated the deceased with such a cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry that she committed suicide and administered poison to her daughters, culminating into their death. As the investigating agency is yet to ascertain the truth in the matter, therefore, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case, in which three precious lives have been lost. 6. Moreover, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depend on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that investigation in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. The court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 7. So, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation, direct allegations alleged against the petitioners and the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the CRM No.M-34068 of 2010 3 petitioners are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this context in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed. November 19, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE