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.53 dated 17.09.2010, under Sections 307/34 IPC, at police station Maqboolpura, Amritsar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 26.03.2012 passed the following order:- “CRM No.17535 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRM No.M- 8383 of 2012 Contends that petitioner is a lady and she is having two minor children and that she is related to injured as her Jethani. Further contends that there is a property dispute between the members of the family and on account of that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is further contended that police already investigated the case and found petitioner innocent on the plea that petitioner is being implicated by the injured due to property dispute and however, petitioner has been summoned to face trial by allowing application under Section 319 Cr.P.C by learned trial Court. Hence, it is contended that petitioner is ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 23.04.2012. In the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and if she so appears and applies for bail, learned trial court is directed to admit her to interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court on 04.04.2012 pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail. Copy of said order has also been placed on record, which is taken on record. It is further contended that she will continue to appear before learned trial Court and face trial. 5. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. 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. 5. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. 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 Meena Saini is accepted and order dated 26.03.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. 8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------