JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- As, identical points for consideration to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions, arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition. 2. The petitioners have directed the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.82 dated 01.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 294, 354 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State/respondent. 4. 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 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 April 12, 2013 in CRM No.M-11892 of 2013:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that complainant and his husband are field labourer and cultivating certain land in village Chamar Khera. The argument is that she has falsely implicated the entire family of the petitioner and other co-accused, in order to grab the agricultural land of son of Pola Ram and no indicated offences are made out against him. The argument further proceeds that she has fabricated the false story of the alleged occurrence dated 25.02.2013, whereas the present case was registered on 01.03.2013, against the accused, in order to wreak vengeance. The concocted story of the prosecution is highly improbable to believe that sons (Suresh & Rajesh) and their father (Mahabir) would collectively outrage the modesty of the complainant. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised in Crl.Misc.No.M-11688 of 2013 titled Suraj Bhan Vs. State of Haryana, in which, anticipatory bail was granted to the accused therein, by this Court, vide order dated 10.04.2013. Heard. Issue notice of motion to the respondent. At this stage, Mr.Gourav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana(sic.) along with counsel for complainant Mr.Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate, appears & accepts notice and seeks time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 06.05.2013 for arguments, at the request of State Counsel. Heard. Issue notice of motion to the respondent. At this stage, Mr.Gourav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana(sic.) along with counsel for complainant Mr.Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate, appears & accepts notice and seeks time to argue the matter. Adjourned to 06.05.2013 for arguments, at the request of State Counsel. 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.” Sequelly, similar orders were passed by this Court in other connected petitions. 6. At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Mahavir Singh, learned State Counsel 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. 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 will naturally take a long time. 7. 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 virtue of orders dated April 12, 2013, April 10, 2013 and April 26, 2013, 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 or repeat such offence in future, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant behalf. ---------0.B.S.0------------