JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As identical questions of law and facts for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions, arising out of the same FIR/case, by this common order, in order to avoid the repetition. 2. Petitioners Sampuran Singh son of Gurbachan Singh and Sobha Singh son of Inder Singh, have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.4 dated 27.1.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452 and 506 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Abohar, District Fazilka, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petitions for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, on the night intervening 25/26.1.2012, having finished their dinner, complainant Amandeep Singh son of Surjit Singh and his other family members had gone to sleep at about 8.30 PM in their house. Thereafter, they started vomiting profusely. They were removed to Civil Hospital, Fazilka for treatment. Subsequently, Kuldeep Kaur, daughter of Surjit Singh, had died due to poison. The complainant suspected that their relatives Master Sampuran Singh and his co-brother (Sandhu) Sobha Singh petitioners-accused had entered in their house and mixed some poisonous substance in their food, in order to kill them. The basis of suspicion was that about 2/2½ years ago, accused Sampuran Singh had threatened his (complainant) father with dire consequences of eliminating their family. On earlier occasion also, he had inserted some poisonous substance in the tap of their field on 12.5.2009, where his father drunk the water and started vomiting. He (Sampuran Singh) was called in the panchayat at that time, but he did not attend the panchayat proceedings to give oath to show his innocence. 4. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that on the night intervening 25/26.1.2012, their relatives Master Sampuran Singh and his co-brother (Sandhu) Sobha Singh petitioners-accused, with their common intention, entered in their house and mixed some poisonous substance in their food, in order to kill them. They were removed to hospital, subsequently, Kuldeep Kaur had died due to poison. They were removed to hospital, subsequently, Kuldeep Kaur had died due to poison. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner described here-in-before. 5. Notice of the petitions was issued to the State. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help, seriousness of allegations of heinous offences, clear motive and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions for anticipatory bail in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant party due to enmity and pending property & criminal disputes between them, so, they are entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. As is evident from the record, that direct and very serious allegations of heinous crime are assigned that both the petitioners-accused, with their common intention to kill the family members, have criminally trespassed the house of complainant on the night intervening 25/26.1.2012. They mixed some poisonous substance in their food. Having consumed the poisonous food, they started vomiting and were removed to the hospital, where Kuldeep Kaur had died due to poison. Not only that, there is a clear motive against petitioner Sampuran Singh that 2/2½ years ago, he had threatened Surjit Singh to eliminate his entire family on account of civil/criminal disputes. Moreover, it has been specifically mentioned in the FIR that on 12.5.2009, petitioner Sampuran Singh had also attempted to kill the complainant party and had inserted some poisonous substance in the tap of their field, where his father had drunk the water, started vomiting and fell ill. 9. It is not a matter of dispute that viscera of deceased Kuldeep Kaur was chemically examined by the Chemical Examiner and it was found to be containing poison i.e. organo-phosphorus compound pesticides, which corroborates the version of the complainant in this relevant connection. Above-all, moreover, there is direct evidence on the record that petitioners-accused were seen entering the house of Surjit Singh by PW Gurcharan Singh and they were seen while coming back from his house by PW Pritam Singh, who confronted them in this respect. Above-all, moreover, there is direct evidence on the record that petitioners-accused were seen entering the house of Surjit Singh by PW Gurcharan Singh and they were seen while coming back from his house by PW Pritam Singh, who confronted them in this respect. Meaning thereby, very serious allegations of commission of murder, attempt to murder and other heinous offences are assigned to the petitionersaccused. As their custodial interrogation is very much essential to erase the curtain from the commission of grave offences committed by them by the police, therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of benefit of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. 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 power 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. 11. 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 trial of main case, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed as such. 12. Needless to state that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions. ---------0.B.S.0------------