JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 160 dated 02.07.2010, under Sections 307/323/324/341/148/149 IPC, registered at police station Sadar, Jalandhar. 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, Jalandhar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. 3. Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 06.12.2011 passed the following order:- “Criminal Misc. No.65980 of 2011 Allowed, as prayed for. Criminal Misc. No.M-36387 of 2011 Learned counsel states that both the petitioners were found innocent during the investigation of the case. Challan was presented only against the co-accused of the petitioners. However, vide order dated 14.10.2011, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar summoned the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused. It has also been submitted that Mohit Kumar-petitioner was alleged to have given two blows with the reverse side of the datar on the right thigh and right foot of the complainant, whereas Sunil Kumarpetitioner had given a kirpan blow on his left arm. These injuries did not attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 27.1.2012. In the meanwhile, the petitioners shall surrender before the trial Court on or before 20.12.2011. In the event of their doing so, they be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail by learned trial Court on 12.12.2011. Copy of the order dated 12.12.2011 has also been produced, which is taken on the record. It is further contended that they will continue to appear before learned trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. 7. 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 Mohit Kumar and Sunil Kumar is accepted and order dated 06.12.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may be imposed by learned trial Court. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ----------0.B.S.0------------