MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR,J. - (1.) AS identical points for the determination of anticipatory bail are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions, arising out of the same FIR/case, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of facts.
(2.) HAVING exercised and lost their right in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, petitioners Smt.Indrawati wife of Ramphal has directed the petition (CRM No. M-39790 of 2012) (for brevity "1st case") and Smt.Krishana and Saroj, daughters of Ramphal have filed CRM No.M-40360 of 2012 (for short "2nd case") for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them, by virtue of FIR No.296 dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 332 and 353 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.;