JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise, to the petitioners, are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions bearing CRM No.M-18509 of 2014, titled as Parveen Versus State of Haryana (for brevity “the 1st Case”) and CRM No.M-18844 of 2014, titled as Sanjeev and others Versus State of Haryana (for short “the 2nd case”), 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.243 dated 14.08.2008, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, by the police of Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon. 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 May 27, 2014 in the 1st case:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner and his other co-accused were charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Petitioner was earlier granted bail and he was regularly appearing in the trial Court. The case was repeatedly transferred from one Court to the other. The counsel for the petitioner assured that he will inform him when his presence would be required in the case. Petitioner remained under the bona fide belief that his counsel would inform. Neither he was served by the trial Court nor his counsel has informed about the case. Subsequently, he was declared Proclaimed Offender without following the proper procedure by the trial Court. Moreover, petitioner undertakes to regularly appear in the Court in future. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 18.07.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender and to file a specific affidavit that he will regularly attend the proceedings in the trial Court in future. Moreover, petitioner undertakes to regularly appear in the Court in future. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 18.07.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender and to file a specific affidavit that he will regularly attend the proceedings in the trial Court in future. In that eventuality, the trial Court would admit him to interim (provisional) bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.” 6. Sequelly, similar order was passed by this Court on May 30, 2014 in the 2nd case as well. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2014, which would reveal that the bail and surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, in pursuance of the pointed order of this Court, were attested and accepted by the trial Court. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of indicated orders are hereby made absolute. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————