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-16690 of 2013 (for brevity “the 1st case”) and CRM No. M-17117 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 Pritam Singh son of Sadhu Singh & others and Sulinder Singh son of Bikkar Singh & others have directed the instant separate petitions for anticipatory bail in the same very case registered against them along with their other co-accused, vide FIR No.9 dated 26.1.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 & 324 read with section 149 IPC (the offence punishable u/s 326 IPC was later on added) by the police of Police Station Dhilwan, 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 context. 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 overt-act is attributed to the petitioners in the FIR. The argument is that the grievous injury, subject matter of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, is attributed to main co-accused Navdeep Singh (non-petitioner). The argument further proceeds that it is a case of version and cross version, which of the party was the aggressor, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised and decided, by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-15646 of 2013, vide order dated 16.05.2013. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 29.05.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is identical to the one raised and decided, by this Court, in Crl. Misc. No. M-15646 of 2013, vide order dated 16.05.2013. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 29.05.2013. 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.” The similar order was also passed by this court in 2nd case on 23.5.2013. 6. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from HC Jasbir 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. It is not a matter of dispute that the main injury, subject matter of offence punishable u/s 326 IPC, is attributed to main co-accused Navdeep Singh (non-petitioner), who is in custody. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate. 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 depicted 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 & 23rd 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------------ —————————