JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. 2. Petitioners Ramesh Lal and his father Durga Dass, have filed the above mentioned two separate petitions for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them alongwith their other co-accused, namely, Vishal Sharma and Harbans Lal, vide FIR No.4 dated 12.1.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, these petitions deserve to be accepted in this respect. 5. At the very outset, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation. The learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satnam Singh, has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 6. What is not disputed here is that there is no complainant in this case, but the matter was initiated on the basis of some intelligence report. It is not a matter of dispute that Raja Ram was original owner of the land in dispute and after his death, the land was inherited by his three sons, namely Daulat Ram, Gurditta Ram and Ram Nath. Petitioner Ramesh Lal is son of Durga Dass son of Daulat Ram. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners have the shares in the ancestral property and they have rightly alienated the same. The dispute appears to be purely of civil nature. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 7. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners have the shares in the ancestral property and they have rightly alienated the same. The dispute appears to be purely of civil nature. The offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as narrated here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, to me, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. ----------------------