JUDGMENT : Amol Rattan Singh, J. 1. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Purshottam Lal, submits that though pursuant to the order dated 17.05.2018, the petitioner has joined investigation, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, in view of the fact that he had also attacked the police party, along with his accomplice. 2. It having been noticed in the order dated 17.05.2018, that three co-accused of the petitioner have been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned trial court itself, (with the order of the trial court dated 09.05.2018, reproduced in the last order of this Court), on query to the learned State counsel as to whether the petitioner is any differently placed to those persons, or whether any application for cancellation of their bail has been filed by the prosecution, he, again on instructions, submits that the present petitioner is not differently placed from those persons and that no application for cancellation of bail of those co-accused has been filed. 3. Consequently, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 17.05.2018, granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.