JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Petitioner-Jaipal son of Pat Ram and his sons have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.1260 dated 12.11.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by the police of Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on November 22, 2013:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the complainant on account of disengagement of petitioner No.2-Ravi son of Jaipal with Sarla, at the instance of her real uncle Pardeep Nain, who is posted as Inspector in Haryana Police. The argument is that so-called entrustment is stated to be the amount spent on ‘God Ceremony’. Since nothing was entrusted or misappropriated, so, no offences under Section 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are made out against the petitioners. Heard. Let notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 10.12.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction.” 5. At the very outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Krishan Kumar has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 6. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 22.11.2013 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 7. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.