JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Petitioner Vishal Kumar son of Ashok Kumar has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case, registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.249 dated 19.9.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 by the police of Police Station ‘A’ Division, Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this court on 6.2.2013:- “Learned counsel, inter-alia, contended that the recovery of alleged liquor was effected from his co-accused Sahil, Jaspal Singh and Bachhittar Singh and the petitioner was subsequently (falsely) implicated by the police in the instant case, in order to wreak vengeance. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 18.02.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25000/- to his satisfaction.” 5. At the very outset, the learned counsel has placed on record a copy of affidavit of petitioner that on 13.2.2013, he along with Vijay Kumar joined the investigation in the above said case, firstly before the Police Station A-Division, Amritsar and then before CIA Staff, Amritsar, although HC Avtar Singh has denied this fact. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner and recovery of alleged liquor was effected from his co-accused Sahil, Jaspal Singh and Bachhittar Singh, to me, subsequently, his (petitioner) false implication cannot be ruled out. 7. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner and recovery of alleged liquor was effected from his co-accused Sahil, Jaspal Singh and Bachhittar Singh, to me, subsequently, his (petitioner) false implication cannot be ruled out. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is hereby accepted and the interim bail already granted to petitioner, vide order dated 6.2.2013 is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.PC. 8. Needless to mention that if the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his anticipatory bail, in this relevant connection.