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. 23 dated 07.02.2012, under Sections 420/328/380/120B IPC, registered at police station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. 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, Kapurthala dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.03.2012 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.17880 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-8541 of 2012 Contends that dispute between the parties was matrimonial in nature and that during his life time complainant, i.e.,husband of the petitioner, had already filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting the marriage dissolved, whereas present petitioner had filed a petition under Sections 12 (1), 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, in order to pressurize the petitioner to give divorce, husband of petitioner during his life time lodged a complaint with the police and, however, after lodging the complaint and before registration of the FIR, he expired and present FIR was registered after death of her husband and the same is being pursued by son of husband of petitioner just to disinherit the petitioner from the property of her husband. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 20.4.2012. However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she 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 she has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 23.03.2012. 5. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that she 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 she 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 she 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 Banita Tandon is accepted and order dated 23.03.2012 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------------