JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As identical points are involved to grant or otherwise of anticipatory bail, 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. The petitioners have preferred the instant petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.34 dated 16.5.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 382 and 506 read with section 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Phul, District Bathinda, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 15.5.2012 at about 8.30 PM, complainant Gurcharan Singh was going from village Phul to Dhapali on his Splender motorcycle. As soon as, he reached near Dara Adhwala, in the meantime, the petitioners-accused came in a tempo and on motorcycle. They surrounded, gave slaps, fist blows to complainant and were stated to have snatched his purse containing Rs.2000/- & golden chain. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. Notices of the petitions were 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, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this respect. 6. As is evident from the record, that very vague allegations are assigned that the petitioners came to the spot, surrounded, slapped, snatched the purse and golden chain of the complainant. No other overt act or injury is attributed to them. The argument of learned counsel that the present case was registered against the petitioners as a counter blast to the case registered against the complainant party, vide FIR No.6 dated 1.2.2012 by Manpreet Singh, real nephew of Resham Singh, co-accused of the petitioners, appears to have considerable force. 7. No other overt act or injury is attributed to them. The argument of learned counsel that the present case was registered against the petitioners as a counter blast to the case registered against the complainant party, vide FIR No.6 dated 1.2.2012 by Manpreet Singh, real nephew of Resham Singh, co-accused of the petitioners, appears to have considerable force. 7. Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (G.S.Sandhawlia, J.) passed the following order on 14.6.2012 in CRM No. M-17552 of 2012 :- “The petitioner is seeking concession of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.34 dated 16.05.2012 under sections 382, 341, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Phul, District Bathinda. Contention of the counsel is that the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant-Gurcharan Singh at the instance of Jaswinder Singh, Panch who is an alleged witness of the said incident in which all the family members have been implicated including one 13 year old boy, namely, Gossa Singh @ Sarpreet Singh who was granted anticipatory bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the present case is a counter-blast to FIR No.6 dated 01.02.2012 registered at P.S.Phul on the statement of Manpreet Singh son of Karnail Singh who is real nephew of co-accused Resham Singh against Jaswinder Singh. It is contended that the petitioner has joined investigation and even recovery has been effected of a motorcycle and a canter tempo which was involved in the crime. Anticipatory bail has been declined on the ground that recovery of Rs.2000/- and a gold chain of 1½ tola is yet to be recovered. Reliance is also placed upon the benefit of interim protection granted to co-accused in CRM No. M-17162 of 2012 on 01.06.2012. Counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. Notice of motion for 01.08.2012. To be heard along with CRM No.M-17162 of 2012. The petitioner, in the event of arrest, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the investigating officer subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.PC.” 8. Notice of motion for 01.08.2012. To be heard along with CRM No.M-17162 of 2012. The petitioner, in the event of arrest, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the investigating officer subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.PC.” 8. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Baljit Pal, has stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-inabove, to me, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 10. Consequently, the instant petitions are hereby accepted. It is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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. 11. Needless to mention that in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, then, the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------