JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral).:- The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.31, dated 23.7.2009, registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, at Police Station Garhdiwala, District Hoshiarpur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 14.10.2009, passed the following order: “ Contends that petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating agency in every manner and an effort shall also be made to amicable settle the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and son of the petitioners. Notice of motion for 7.12.2009. In the meantime, it is directed that petitioners shall join the investigation forthwith. However, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on ad-interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i)that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police Officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” 4. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have already joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any investigation. It is further contended that they are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and that husband of the complainant has already been arrested and released on regular bail now. 5. It has been stated by learned State counsel as well, on instructions from Ram Singh, HC, that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police. 6. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. 7. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 8. 6. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. 7. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 8. In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 14.10.2009, granting interim bail to petitioners-Karnail Singh and Surjit Kaur is, hereby confirmed subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ------------