JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Petitioner-Hira Lal @ Heera Batra son of Brij Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his brother & co-accused Joginder Pal @ Kala and others, by means of FIR No.173 dated 16.09.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34, 115, 109, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar, 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 deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present 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 April 23, 2013:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that accused Joginder Pal brother of the present petitioner, was arrested in this case. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and his brother, were found innocent and in the wake of police request, he was discharged from the case by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, by virtue of order dated 19.10.2012(Annexure P-2). Subsequently, Raj Singh(third co-accused) made a disclosure statement to the effect that they had fired the shot on the complainant Harbans Lal, at the instance of petitioner-Hira Lal @ Heera Batra and his brother Joginder Pal @ Kala. No other overt-act, role or injury is attributed to the present petitioner. The argument is that prosecution is only relying upon the disclosure statement and there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence on record against the petitioner. Moreover, Joginder Pal (co-accused of brother of the petitioner), has already been allowed the concession of regular bail, by this Court, vide order dated 10.04.2013 in Crl. Misc.No.M-9566 of 2013 (Annexure P-4). Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 08.05.2013. 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.25,000/- to his satisfaction.” 5. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 08.05.2013. 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.25,000/- to his satisfaction.” 5. At the very outset, on the instructions from HC Gurwinder Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute that Joginder Pal @ Kala, brother and co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed the concession of regular bail by this Court, by way of order dated 10.04.2013 in CRM No.M-9566 of 2013, Annexure P-4. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner under the similar set of circumstances. 6. 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 petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court, vide order dated April 23, 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 petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this respect. ---------0.B.S.0------------