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.217/211 dated 27.08.2011, under Sections 420/465/46/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at police station Basti Khel Bawa, 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 on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 20.12.2011 passed the following order:- “The petitioner is alleged to have fabricated and forged the bills and transport goods and receipts. It is claimed that the petition for quashing is pending before this Court and six civil suits for recovery against the complainant are also pending at Delhi. The criminal proceedings are stated to be counter blast to the civil suits filed by the petitioner. Notice of motion for 06.02.2012. Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on 07.01.2012 and in case of his doing so, he will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 20.12.2011 5. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State, on instruction from SI Sucha Singh, that petitioner has joined the investigation. However, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent-State as well as learned counsel for complainant on the plea that petitioner has committed forgery of some bilties and bills and that recovery is to be effected from him. 6. However, perusal of First Information Report shows that there had been dealings between petitioner and complainant and goods used to be supplied by petitioner to complainant and accounts used to be maintained. Some dispute arose regarding some of the goods. Complainant is alleging that some goods were not sent as claimed by the petitioner and he had forged some bills. Petitioner had already filed six civil suits against complainant on the same allegations, which are pending at Delhi. 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. Petitioner had already filed six civil suits against complainant on the same allegations, which are pending at Delhi. 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 Tarvinder Singh is accepted and order dated 20.12.2011 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------------