JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - As the identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise to petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated petitions i.e. CRM No. M-8719 of 2014 titled as “Veerpal Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” (for brevity “the 1st petition”), CRM No.M-10222 of 2014 titled as “Lovepreet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” (for short “2nd petition”) and CRM No. M-10224 of 2014 titled as “Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab” (for brevity “3rd case”), arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order to avoid the repetition of facts. 2. The petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.11 dated 12.2.2014 (Annexure P2), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Tappa Mandi, Distt. Barnala. 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 deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this regard. 5. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Surinder Gupta, J.) passed the following order in 1st petition on 11.3.2014:- “Heard. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was having a love affair with the son of the complainant who was later on involved in a case under Section 363/366-A/376 IPC on the statement of the petitioner and was facing trial. As per the complainant, due to the pressure and demand of money being raised, he took extreme step of committing suicide. Notice of motion for 18.7.2014. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, who is present in the court accepts notice on behalf of the complainant. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will surrender before the police and join the investigation. In the event of her arrest, she will be released on bail on her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, she will abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.” 6. Sequelly, similar orders were passed by the same very Bench in 2nd & 3rd petitions on 26.3.2014 as well. However, she will abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.” 6. Sequelly, similar orders were passed by the same very Bench in 2nd & 3rd petitions on 26.3.2014 as well. 7. At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Rajinder Singh, has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. From the crux of the allegations contained in the FIR, as to whether the penal provision of offence punishable u/s 306 IPC is attracted to the case of petitioners or not, inter-alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Moreover, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan), so, the final conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as depicted here-in-before and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petitions are accepted and the interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners, by means of indicated orders by this court are hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.PC. 9. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for anticipatory bail only. At the same time, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail in this Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————