JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner Prabhjit Singh alias Lalli Singh son of Anoop Singh has applied for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Ballu son of Ram Saroop and Dharminder son of Rajinder, by means of FIR No.97 dated 28.7.2012, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by the police of Police Station Valtoha, Distt. Tarn Taran, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. 3. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since no recovery was effected from the petitioner and his identity is doubtful, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 4. There are direct allegations against the petitioner that in the wake of search, one bag, containing 2 Kgs. of opium was recovered from the possession of the accused. The mere fact that the petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence, ipso facto, is not a ground to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to him. Keeping in view the recovery of opium of 2 Kgs., to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential to ascertain as to in how many other cases of Narcotics, he is involved and what is source of opium. If the anticipatory bail is allowed to him, then, the investigating agency would be deprived from collecting the evidence, which would naturally weaken the case of the prosecution. 5. Moreover, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine/course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC 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 normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC 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 normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road 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 in this relevant connection. 6. 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 the trial of the main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 7. Needless to mention that nothing recorded, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. ---------0.B.S.0------------