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.63 dated 11.02.2012, under Section 379 IPC, registered at police station City Jind. 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, Jind dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 21.03.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.17124 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-8156 of 2012 Contends that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle involved in this case even today. It is further submitted that petitioner sold the vehicle to one Basau son of Soran Singh and as per agreement Basau was to clear loan of the financial company, failing which Basau was to return the vehicle to the petitioner. Further contends that as Basau could not clear the loan of the finance company, the vehicle was returned to him and he is in possession of the same as owner even today. Further contends that petitioner is not aware of any transaction between Basau and complainant and that he is having no concern with the complainant nor he has received any amount from the complainant. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 18.4.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 21.03.2012. 5. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from ASI Ramesh Kumar, that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. 6. 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. 7. 6. 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. 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 Vikash @Sonu is accepted and order dated 21.03.2012 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. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------