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.138 dated 09.12.2011, under Sections 304B/498A IPC, registered at police station Nangal, District Rupnagar. 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, Fast Track Court, Ropar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 15.03.2013 passed the following order:- “Crl.M.No.16107 of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-8338 of 2013 Contends that petitioner is unmarried brother-in-law, employed in National Fertilizer Limited, Nangal, and was having no concern with the married life of deceased and her husband. Further contends that he was found innocent by the police during investigation and, however he was summoned to face trial by learned trial Court by allowing application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Further contends that he is ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 11.4.2013. In the meantime, petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and if he so appears and applies for bail, learned trial Court is directed to admit him on interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it.” 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he has already appeared before learned trial pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail. It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner undertakes to appear before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and face trial. 5. The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Vijay Kumar. 6. 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. 7. 5. The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent-State, on instruction from ASI Vijay Kumar. 6. 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. 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 Jatinder Kumar is accepted and order dated 15.03.2013 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------------