JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : Accused Ajaib Singh and his wife Jasbir Kaur have filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.75 dated 09.09.2011, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 3. According to the prosecution version, there was compromise dated 17.05.2009, according to which petitioner no.1 was to give up his claim over half share of land belonging to complainant’s brother Harpinder Singh, regarding which suit of petitioner no.1 had been decreed and in lieu thereof, complainant agreed to mortgage his share of the land in favour of petitioner no.2 and accordingly, mortgaged it vide mortgage deed dated 07.08.2009, but petitioner no.1 has not given up the claim over share of complainant’s brother Harpinder Singh, as per compromise. 4. In so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, she is not party to the alleged compromise nor she had to give up the claim in the share of complainant’s brother. 5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Prem Kumar, stated that pursuant to interim order of this Court, both petitioners have since joined investigation. 6. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, petitioner no.2, who is a woman, deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. 7. In so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, learned State counsel, on instructions, contended that on 24.09.2011 i.e. before passing of interim order dated 18.10.2011 by this Court, police party had raided the house of petitioners to arrest them, but petitioner no.1 and his other family members attacked the police party and escaped and separate FIR for the same stands registered against petitioner no.1 and his family members, but petitioner no.2 is not accused in that case. It is also stated petitioner no.1 is signatory and party to compromise dated 17.05.2009. 8. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, petitioner no.1 does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition for anticipatory bail qua petitioner no.1 Ajaib Singh is dismissed, whereas the instant petition qua petitioner no.2 Jasbir Kaur is allowed. 10. 8. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case, petitioner no.1 does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition for anticipatory bail qua petitioner no.1 Ajaib Singh is dismissed, whereas the instant petition qua petitioner no.2 Jasbir Kaur is allowed. 10. Interim order dated 18.10.2011 is made absolute qua petitioner no.2 only and is vacated qua petitioner no.1. -------------------