JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) - Petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.152 dated 24.10.2012, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, by the police of Police Station Baund Kalan, District Bhiwani. 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 assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, 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 by this Court on October 16, 2014: - “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case by the complainant in order to put pressure and to wreak vengeance. The argument is that initially the present case was registered against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341 and 506 IPC, however, the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 307 IPC were later on added, by fabricating the injuries by the police, at the instance of complainant. Not only that, during the course of investigation, he was found innocent and was exonerated by the police. He was subsequently summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as additional accused, by the trial Court. The argument further proceeds that even simple injury with lathi is attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused, namely, Khel Singh alias Karan, Amar Singh, Satpal, Ramesh, Yudhvir, Sajjan and Phoolwati etc. were stated to have already granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. Moreover, the controversy involved in the instant petition is stated to be identical to the one raised and decided, by virtue of order dated 24.05.2013, rendered in CRM-M No.11328 of 2013, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Ajay Tewari, J.) and by means of order dated 12.09.2014 in CRM-M No. 29218 of 2014, by this Court. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 12.11.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit him to interim (provisional) bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.” 5. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 12.11.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before the next date of hearing and the trial Court would admit him to interim (provisional) bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction.” 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the true copy of order dated 18.10.2014, which would reveal that petitioner has already appeared/surrendered and bail & surety bonds furnished by him, in pursuance of the pointed order of this Court, were attested and accepted by the trial Court. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim (provisional) bail already granted to the petitioner, by way of indicated order of this Court, is hereby made absolute. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————