JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner- Jiwan Kumar son of Sh. Prem Chand, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused namely, Ram Singh @ Ram Sarup, Prem Chand and Bikker, by means of FIR No.128 dated 06.11.2011, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B and 376 IPC by the Police of Police Station Nangal, District Ropar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. Initially, the present criminal case was registered against main accused Ram Singh @ Ram Sarup, Jiwan Kumar (petitioner), Prem Chand and Bikker. During the course of investigation, Prem Chand-accused was found innocent whereas, Bikker has already been allowed bail. 5. According to the prosecution, the victim (name intentionally withheld) was allured by main accused Ram Singh @ Ram Sarup and they performed the love marriage. Petitioner-Jiwan Kumar is brother of main accused Ram Singh @ Ram Sarup. The only allegation alleged against the petitioner is that he helped his brother Ram Singh @ Ram Sarup in taking away the victim. No other role or overt-act is attributed to him. 6. Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on July 02, 2012:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that Narinder Kaur daughter of complainant-Manjit Kaur has voluntarily left her house and performed the marriage with one Ram Singh @ Ramu. They filed the petition and protection was granted to them by this Court. The argument is that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the indicated offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 01.08.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the even of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.” 7. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 01.08.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the even of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction.” 7. At the very outset, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Ashraf Khan, has stated that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. There is no history of previous involvement of the petition in any other criminal case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed herein above, the present petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim order dated July 02, 2012 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 9. Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation then the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------