Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 27929-M of 2001, Inder Singh v. Shiv Charan and another, and Crl. Misc. No. 28752-M, Mohinder singh v. Shiv Charan and another, as they both arise out of the same FIR. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Ravinder Yadav (now deceased) and others were required by the police in case FIR No. 89 dated 5.5.1999 under Sections 198-A, 304-B, IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Rewari, in connection with the alleged dowry death of his wife namely Smt. Ramesh who is alleged to have committed suicide by jumping into the well. Ravinder Yadav was summoned at the police station in connection with the interrogation of that criminal case but he died in police custody. His father Shiv Charan son of Umaro was not satisfied with the explanation and reasoning given by the police leading to his death. So, he ultimately filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., in the High Court which was allowed vide order dated 24.8.1999 directing the Superintendent of Police, Rewari, to get a case registered with regard to the death of Ravinder Yadav on the basis of the averments made in the said petition and to entrust the investigation to a Senior Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In compliance with the directions of this Court, case bearing FIR No. 255 dated 7.9.1999 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered and the investigation was jointly conducted by DSP, H.Q. Shri Daya Krishan, DSP H.Q. Laxman Dass and Karnail Singh DSP Kosli. They found petitioner Inder Singh M.H.C. and his co-accused Mohinder Singh to be innocent and sent the cancellation report.. 3. A notice was issued to complainant Shiv Charan, who filed an application against cancellation which was treated as a protest petition. He examined six witnesses in evidence. 4. After going through the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, came to prima-facie conclusion that the petitioner and his co-accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 302, 504, 506, IPC, and as such, issued summons to them. 5. The petitioner and his co-accused applied for the grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 14.7.2001, Annexure P-4. 5. The petitioner and his co-accused applied for the grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide order dated 14.7.2001, Annexure P-4. Now Inder Singh petitioner in this petition and Mohinder Singh petitioner in the connected CrI. Misc. 28752-M of 2001 have approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Sidharath Sarup, AAG Haryana and Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 and carefully gone through the record on the file. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the medical report pertaining to deceased Ravinder Yadav, no injury of any type visible or otherwise was found on his person and on the other hand the doctor had given an opinion that the death of Ravinder was cardic arrhythmy which occurred suddenly and as such it could not be said that there was any sort of beating or causing any injury which had resulted into his death. He further contended that Ravinder expired on 9.6.1999 at the General Hospital, Rewari, and information regarding his death was sent to his family members and others and then Gulzari Lal maternal uncle of the deceased and Phool Singh Sarpanch of the village alongwith Fateh Singh, Krishan sons of Shiv Charan came to the General Hospital, Rewari, where inquest proceedings were conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and their statements were also recorded at that time. No finger was pointed out towards the petitioners. He further contended that there was delay of 3 months in lodging the FIR which affected its genuineness. He also contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted by DSP H.Q., in which the petitioner and his co-accused were found innocent. He also contended that as a matter of fact, the present case was a counter-blast to the Police case in which Shiv Charan complainant and his son Ravinder Yadav (now deceased) were involved under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC. So, he prayed that the petitioners be allowed anticipatory bail. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that Ravinder had died in police custody as he was subjected to physical torture by the petitioners. So, he prayed that the petitioners be allowed anticipatory bail. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that Ravinder had died in police custody as he was subjected to physical torture by the petitioners. He further contended that Ravinder was healthy when he was brought to the police station and was kept in the police station and he died within short span without any apparent visible reason. He also contended that Ravinder Yadav was made to lie on the ground and four police officials were applying pressure on his feet and neck and Mohinder Singh A.S. I. along with the petitioner had given him merciless beating. He also contended that Fateh Chand and Krishan who were present in the Police Station made entreaties before ASI Mohinder Singh and requested them not to beat Ravinder Yadav but the said ASI slapped them and they were thrown out of the police station and were told that if they wanted to save Ravinder Yadav from beatings, they should arrange for Rs. 50,000/- which they were not able to arrange. He also contended that two sons of the complainant and others were summoned in the police station and they were made to sign certain blank papers in the night. He also further contended that the investigation conducted by the DSP was tainted and was done in a perfunctory manner to favour the petitioners. He also contended that last rites of the deceased were performed in village Dhani Bhandore in a secret manner and the father of the deceased was not present at that time as he was not informed. He also contended that Ravinder Yadav was aged about 28 years and was a healthy person and it is difficult to believe that he had died due to consumption of heavy liquor and if it was so then alcohol would have been detected at the time of post-mortem examination but no alcohol was detected at the time of post mortem examination. He further stated that Ravinder Yadav was given beatings on his vital organs which resulted into his death and the beating was given in such a manner that they did not leave any proof of beating on his person. He further stated that Ravinder Yadav was given beatings on his vital organs which resulted into his death and the beating was given in such a manner that they did not leave any proof of beating on his person. He also contended that the medical evidence could not override the direct evidence about assault by particular weapon when direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable as held by the Apex Court in Punjab Singh v. Karnail Singh, 1984 CrI. L.J. 921. He also contended that where no visible injury was found on the dead body of the deceased in the post mortem report, even then a case under Section 302 IPC was made out against the accused. He further contended that according to the medical chart Ravinder Yadav died due to heart problem but there is no evidence that he was administered any medicine for heart ailment. This only showed that this was all a made up story and he died on 9.6.1999 at 2.15 a.m. after vomiting as he was given injuries with legs or fist blows on his vital parts i.e. testicles, chest or back etc. 9. It is well settled that provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly invoked in rarest of the rare cases. The petitioners are alleged to have committed a serious offence by causing the death of Ravinder Yadav in police custody and as such, in my opinion, they are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Hence it is rejected. However, nothing said or observed herein will influence the mind of the trial Court while deciding the case on merits.