JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) - The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 309 dated 26.07.2012, under Sections 406/498A/506 IPC, registered at police station Urban Estate Rohtak. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 22.08.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.Misc.No.48699 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Crl.Misc. Application stands disposed of. Crl.Misc.No.M-25268 of 2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the insignificant temperamental differences between the petitioner and the complainant, there had been nothing serious between them. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties because the petitioner, on his part, will make every sincere endeavour to save his marriage. Notice of motion to A.G. Haryana, for 26.9.2012. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim pre-arrest bail to the satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer, subject to further conditions provided in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall join and cooperate with the investigating agency, as and when required.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 22.08.2012. It has also been stated that moreover differences between petitioner and respondent no.2 have already been resolved and that they have agreed to live together. 5. Respondent no.2 has also come present in the Court alongwith her counsel. A sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid by counsel for petitioner to her as her expenses for appearing in this Court. It has also been stated by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that though petitioner had assured her on telephone that he would leave his drinking habbit and he would not interfere in her service career and hence, it has been stated by respondent no.2 that she is having no objection if the interim order is made absolute. 6. This fact has also not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent no.1-State. 7. 6. This fact has also not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent no.1-State. 7. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 8. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Kuldeep Malik is accepted and order dated 22.08.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 9. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------