`The petitioner Sri Purnendu Chakraborty impugnes the order dated 16.8.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Misc. Case No. 16 of 1988 cancelling the anticipatory bail of the petitioner granted on 21.7. 1988 by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The petitioner is a named accused of Karimganj Police Station Case No. 151 of 1988, under section 302/201/34 I. P. C. ( G. R. Case No. 444 of 1988 ). The allegation in the First Information Report dated 28.5.1988 was that Sri Purnendu Chakraborty and Khownish Chakraborty along with their family members murdered Srimati Rani Chakraborty alias Gita on 27.5.1988. It was suspected to be a bride killing case on the issue of insufficient dowry. Khownish was husband of the deceased Gita ( bride ) and Purnendu is his brother-in-law (Sister's husband) who alleged to have joined him in killing her. This facts alleged in the First Information Report as to the informations given to the informant (brother of deceased) by the messengers of the accused party as to the cause of death at different point of time on the same day (27.5.1988 ) disclosed strong suspicion of bride killing. On 21.7.88 accused Purnendu filed an application before the Assistant Sessions Judge, dealing with urgent application under section 10 Cr. P. C., for his anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. The Judge granted anticipatory bail on the same day, in spite of vehement objection by the Public Prosecutor and refusing to call for and look into the materials in the case diary, on the grounds that the accused was an officer and there would be no likelihood of his absconding and that the prosecution perhaps gathered the required materials by investigation during the period of about 2 months. The anticipatory bail was granted in spite of vehement objection by the Public Prosecutor and also by rejection his submission to call for and peruse the case diary/investigation record before considering the anticipatory bail application. The informant Sankar Chakraborty filed the application on 12.8. 1988 before the learned Sessions Judge under section 439 (2) Cr. The anticipatory bail was granted in spite of vehement objection by the Public Prosecutor and also by rejection his submission to call for and peruse the case diary/investigation record before considering the anticipatory bail application. The informant Sankar Chakraborty filed the application on 12.8. 1988 before the learned Sessions Judge under section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the petitioner Purnendu granted on 21.7.1988 on the grounds :-(1) that Purnendu was the main accused of the murder and his arrest was very necessary for investigation (2) that Purnendu was absconding since the date of occurrence; (3) that he suppressed the fact of rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the High Court in Crl. Original Appli­cation No. 177 of 1988, prior to 21.7.1988, relying the observation/cau­tion given by the Supreme Court in the case Samunder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1987) 1 S C C 466 in bride killing for dowry. The learned Sessions Judge heard the learned counsel for both sides on 16.8.1988 while considering the petition for cancelling the anticipatory bail and passed the impugned order. The Judge being convinced that the accused petitioner failed to make him available before the investigating agency, after obtaining the bail order, for his interrogation and thereby violated the con­dition of the bail ; that he suppressed from the Court about the fact of rejection of his anticipatory bail prayer by the High Court; that the bail was granted without consulting the case diary in a case of bride murder for insufficiency of dowry, so he cancelled the bail. Mr. M. A. Laskar submits that the accused petitioner was not properly heard in the matter of cancellation. This submission has no force. The order is very clear that the counsel of the accused petitioner was duly heard in the matter on 16.8.1988. Mr. Laskar further submits that the petitioner had not involved in the interfe­rence or attempted to interfere with the course of administration of justice or abusing the liberty of the bail and so, there was no reason for cancelling the anticipatory bail. In support of his submission Mr. Laskar refers to AIR 1987 SC 149 and AIR 1984 SC 372 . Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. In support of his submission Mr. Laskar refers to AIR 1987 SC 149 and AIR 1984 SC 372 . Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. C.R, De submits that the conduct of the accused petitioner was very unfair because he was absconding, suppressed the facts of rejection of the anticipatory bail by the High Court for obtaining the bail order from Assistant Sessions Judge, did not make himself available for interrogation by the investigating agency and failed to co-operate the investigation. Mr. De further submits that the case being of bride killing, grant of anticipatory bail was not justified as it hampered the investigation of the case which mainly depends on circumstantial evidence. In support of his submission Mr. De refers AIR 1987 SC 737 . In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149 , the Supreme Court made it clear that an order for bail under section 167 (2) does not come to an end with the passage of time or on the filing of charge-sheet or by a remand to custody under is always subjected to the provisions of sections 437 (5) or 439 (2) on the grounds that the accused favoured with the bail order interferes or attempt to interfere with the due course of administra­tion of justice or evading course of justice or abusing the liberty granted to him. It was held in AIR 1984 SC 372 that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. The instant case is strongly suspected to be a bride killing for dowry affair and the investigation is in progress. The nature of evidence will be mainly circumstantial. Arrest of the main accused in such a case was essential for proper investigation to collect evidence by thorough interrogation in custody. Interrogation without the accused being in custody is generally becomes less effective. In a case of such nature (bride killing) the Courts must be fully alert that the investigating agency is not obstructed or interfered with the usual course of arrest and investigation for the purpose of collecting evidence in the matter of administration of justice. Granting the anticipatory bail in the case on the day of application, without looking into the materials in the case diary, was highly improper. Granting the anticipatory bail in the case on the day of application, without looking into the materials in the case diary, was highly improper. The facts that the accused was an officer, occurrence took place about 2(two) months ago and that he would be available in trial cannot be the special reasons in such nature of case for an order of anticipatory bail. The accused was absconding being the main one according to the first information, he suppressed the fact of rejection of his anticipatory bail by the High Court and made himself not available for interrogation after obtaining bail. His conduct and acts had verily interfered with the course of the administration of justice and had abused the liberty granted to him. It was not at all proper for an order of anticipatory bail under section 438 in the instant case. It had hampered the course of investigation. The Supreme Court has cautioned the Courts not to act under section 438 in bride killing cases where the investigation is in progress and that investigation be allowed to proceed with the usual course. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that it would neither be prudent nor proper to grant anticipatory bail in such a case (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 373, Samunder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan). Liberal application of the provision of section 438 in bride killing cases and in serious offences would sometimes stand as obstruction in investigation. However, exception may occur considering the facts/allegations from case to case. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned due reasons for cancelling the anticipatory bail order. It was rightly done. There is nothing to interfere with it. This revision application is dismissed. Intimate learned Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Karimganj with copy of this order immediately.