JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - As identical points for determination of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners or otherwise are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions, bearing CRM No. M-17094 of 2013 (for brevity “the 1st case”) and CRM No. M-17841 of 2013 (for short “the 2nd case”), arising out of the same FIR/case, vide this common decision in order to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. Petitioners Tara son of Bagga and Jaswinder Rai son of Bhag Mal have preferred the instant separate petitions for anticipatory bail in the same very case registered against them along with their other coaccused, vide FIR No.22 dated 24.4.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324 and 341 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Satnampura Phagwara, Distt.Kapurthala, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 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 help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this respect. 5. During the course of preliminary hearing of 1st case, the following order was passed by this Court on 22.5.2013:- “Learned counsel, inter-alia, contended that neither any injury nor any specific role (except the ‘lalkara’) is attributed to the petitioner. Even, he was empty handed. Moreover, all other injuries caused by other co-accused are on the vital parts of the body of the complainant. The argument is that no indicated offences are made out against the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant in order to wreak vengeance. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 29.05.2013. 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.” Sequelly, the similar order was also passed by this court in 2nd case on 28.5.2013. 6. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Onkar Singh, has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. 6. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Onkar Singh, 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. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the main injury, subject matter of offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, was attributed to main co-accused Sandeep Kumar alias Sunny (non-petitioner). There is no history of previous involvement of petitioners in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions are hereby accepted and the interim anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, vide orders dated 22nd & 28th May, 2013 is made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.PC. 8. Needless to mention that if the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their anticipatory bail, in this relevant direction. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————