JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.272 dated 10.8.2012, registered at Police Station City Meham, District Rohtak, under Sections 306/34 IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the deceased had taken by mistake the liquid meant for spray on the plants etc. It is further submitted that the deceased was suffering from cold and fever and as per the affidavit sworn by the sister of the deceased, she had brought some medicines for the deceased. In the morning at 6 a.m., Santro – petitioner gave ring to the parents of the deceased that she had taken some liquid spray. When the complainant along with other family members reached at village Bhaini Chanderpal, they found that their daughter was dead. 3. The allegations in the FIR are to the effect that the petitioner was harassing the deceased as a result of which she must have taken some spray. It is yet to be determined whether it was pesticide or something else. At the threshold, petitioner cannot be granted indulgence by this Court because for recovery of the container of the alleged spray and other things are to be enquired from the petitioner. No ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Chand Kanwal (died) and Dipak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2625 and two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2012(2) Law Herald (SC) 1651] : 2012(1) Criminal Court Cases 624 and Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, [2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1294 (SC)] : 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 810. 5. I have perused the authorities cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner. These are based on the final verdict of the trial after appreciation of the evidence. No such authority has been cited by the petitioner wherein case has been referred at the stage of anticipatory bail. The entire evidence has to be appreciated at the time of trial. Even if there is plea of alibi, the same can be raised only at the stage of trial and not at the stage of anticipatory bail. No such authority has been cited by the petitioner wherein case has been referred at the stage of anticipatory bail. The entire evidence has to be appreciated at the time of trial. Even if there is plea of alibi, the same can be raised only at the stage of trial and not at the stage of anticipatory bail. In view of this fact, these authorities are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out. This Court cannot appreciate this contention at this stage. However, it can be appreciated only after the evidence is led. In the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation and custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the marriage was 14 years old and this is not a case of demand of dowry and at the most, it can be a case of harassment. Question of marriage will not arise in such situation. This is a case where the wife has been compelled to commit suicide. No ground is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. No merit. Dismissed.