JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Petitioners Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Sonu and Balbir Kaur @ Verro w/o Paramjit Singh have applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.65 dated 27.3.2012, on accusation of having committed an offences punishable under section 306, 313, 316 and 511 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the facts of the prosecution case, emanating from the record, are that the marriage of Komalpreet Kaur was solemnized with Harjinder Singh son of Paramjit Singh 3½ months prior to the present occurrence. Sufficient dowry articles were stated to have been given at the time of marriage by her maternal uncle (Mamma). Her husband Harjinder Singh, who was doing the Sanitary work at Tarn Taran, was not doing any work at the time of occurrence. Petitioner Balbir Kaur, mother-in-law and Sukhwinder Kaur, sister-in-law of Komalpreet Kaur, were harassing her as her husband was not doing any work. They used to quarrel and taunt her daily in this respect. From the behaviour of the petitioners, Komalpreet Kaur poured kerosene and set her on fire. Subsequently, she succumbed to her injuries. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that Komalpreet Kaur committed suicide and petitioners-accused have abetted the commission of offences. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of dying declaration of Komalpreet Kaur, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. Notice of the application was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant application. 6. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioners that they harassed, taunted and treated the deceased with such cruelty that she was compelled to commit suicide. The tendency and frequency of committing suicide on account of cruelty by the relatives of deceased have been tremendously increasing day by day. The deceased has given a cogent version with regard to the maltreatment and cruelty caused to her by the petitioners in her dying declaration, which formed the basis of the FIR. 7. The tendency and frequency of committing suicide on account of cruelty by the relatives of deceased have been tremendously increasing day by day. The deceased has given a cogent version with regard to the maltreatment and cruelty caused to her by the petitioners in her dying declaration, which formed the basis of the FIR. 7. The solitary argument of learned counsel that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3874 : 2010(2) Marr.L.J. (SC) 659] : 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 643; Kailashi Bai v. Aarti Arya and Anr., 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 1 and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 113] : 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 603 are at all applicable to the facts of the instant case at this stage of deciding the application for anticipatory bail. 8. As indicated earlier, since there are direct allegations in regard to the cruelty, harassment etc. caused to the deceased by the petitioners in her dying declaration, so, to me, no ground for grant of extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in such henious offence is made out. 9. Moreover, the anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of 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 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 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. 10. 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. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts & circumstances, described hereinbefore 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 application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, because the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present application. ---------0.B.S.0------------