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 similar FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition. 2. The petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR Nos.108 and 109 dated 11.02.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 313 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State. 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 26, 2013 in CRM No.M-13086 of 2013:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant Meenu daughter of Jagpal Singh. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to the petitioners and no indicated offences are made against them. The argument is that moreover the petitioners have also disowned their son(husband of the complainant) and they are residing separately. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 10.05.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction.” 6. Sequelly, similar order was passed by this Court in connected petition bearing CRM No.M-13087 of 2013 on April 26, 2013. 7. At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Raj Kumar, 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. 7. At the very outset, on the instructions from ASI Raj Kumar, 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. Even, since the police has not submitted the final police report(challan), so, the conclusion of trial will 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 virtue of orders dated 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, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------