JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral):- As, identical points for consideration to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners-Manpreet Singh Bhullar and his mother Rashpal Kaur are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing CRM No.M-850 of 2013(for brevity “the 1st case”) and CRM No.M-37201 of 2012(for short “the 2nd case”), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, in order to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, by virtue of FIR No.93 dated 25.10.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, by the police of Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the respondents. 4. After perusing the record with the help of the investigating officer, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context. 5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on January 14, 2013 in the 1st petition:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the complainant has earlier filed the complaints on the same very allegations against the petitioner. During the course of enquiries, the allegations were found to be false by the police of Police Station Kharar and Ludhiana. The police concluded that it was a property dispute, vide reports (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-7). Therefore, no indicated offences are made out against the petitioner. Heard. Issue notice of motion to the respondents. At this stage, Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on behalf of the State and Mr.H.S.Saggu, Advocate appear and accept notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and seek time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 24.01.2013 for arguments, at the request of counsel for respondent No.2. 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.25,000/- to his satisfaction.” 6. Sequelly, the following order was passed by this Court on November 29, 2012 in the 2nd petition :- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner is old widow of 70 years of age and is mother-in-law of the complainant. Sequelly, the following order was passed by this Court on November 29, 2012 in the 2nd petition :- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner is old widow of 70 years of age and is mother-in-law of the complainant. She is residing separately from the complainant since long. The similar complaints(Annexures P-3 & P-4), filed by the complainant, were found to be false by the police, vide reports (Annexures P-5 to P-8). The argument is that concealing all these true facts, the complainant has lodged the instant false criminal case involving the petitioner, in order to wreak vengeance and no indicated offences are made out against her. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 10.12.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of her arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit her to bail on her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction. 7. At the very outset, the investigating officer has acknowledged the factual matrix and stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. As per investigating officer, there is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the police has not submitted the final police report(challan), so, the conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are hereby accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by way of orders dated January 14, 2013 and November 29, 2012, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, 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 relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------