JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The petitioners have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.53 dated 30.03.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Section 21 of The Mines and Minerals(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, by the police of Police Station Sadar Fazilka. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed on October 30, 2014 by this Court:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the police on account of political vendetta at the instance of ruling party. The argument is that the name of the petitioners is not mentioned in the FIR. The argument further proceeds that even the police did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in question in view of Section 22 of The Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Moreover, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 17.11.2014. 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.” 5. At the very outset, on instructions from HC Dayal Chand, 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. Moreover, the offences alleged against the accused are stated to be 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. 6. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, the offences alleged against the accused are stated to be 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. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioners, by means of indicated order of this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for pre-arrest bail. At the same time, 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 Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————