ORDER The petitioner is the wife of the first accused namely Jyothi Kumar. Crime No. 119 of 2009 has been registered against petitioner and her husband Jyothi Kumar for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that both of them had conspired and committed the murder of father and mother of first accused in their house during the evening of 5-7-2009. 2. I have heard Sri S.C. Baghavan, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State. 3. The first informant is the younger brother of first accused. As could be seen from the contents of first information, the father of first accused namely deceased Venkataswamy was an ex-servicemen. After retiring from defence service, he was working in KSRTC for sometime. An extent of 5 acres of land was granted to him for the services rendered by him. His wife namely Lakshmamma was allotted a site measuring 50 x 60 in HBBR layout, which they had sold for a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs. Deceased Venkataswamy and deceased Lakshmamma were living in the ground floor of the building. It belonged to deceased Venkataswamy. In the adjoining portion, the first accused and his wife were living. In the first floor of the house, complainant and his family members were living. On 4-7-2009, first accused had quarreled with his father demanding his share of the property. In that connection, parties had been summoned to police station and they had been advised. On 5-7-2009, the first informant did not find his parents and therefore, he enquired with his wife and she told that they were not seen since 7.00 p.m. on 4-7-2009 and they might have gone out of the house. On 5-7-2009 at about 10.30 a.m. when the first informant was near his house, he saw the first accused carrying plastic cover containing some articles. On the same day, at about 6.50 p.m. when he was standing on the terrace, ,he saw accused 1 who came in Maruthi 800 car and stopped the car in front of the house and went inside the house and within two or three minutes he came out of the house and locked the house and went away. At about 8.00 p.m. he found that accused 2 with her children crying in front of their house. At about 8.00 p.m. he found that accused 2 with her children crying in front of their house. When he enquired, accused 2 informed him that some unknown persons had brought two dead bodies of unknown persons, and have placed them in their house. The first informant entered the house and removed the bags containing dead bodies and found dead bodies of his father and mother. They were in decomposed state. The matter was informed to police. The first accused was absconding. During investigation, the complicity of accused 1 and 2 was unearthed. Therefore, charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against petitioner. The entire material collected during the course of investigation points a prima facie case against first accused. The statements of witnesses do not provide any incriminating circumstances against petitioner. Therefore, there is no prima facie case against petitioner and she has to be released on bail. 5. The learned Government Pleader has taken me through the records of investigation to submit that the conduct of petitioner, weeping in front of house at about 8.00 p.m. on 5-7-2009 and informing first informant that some unknown person has brought two dead bodies of unknown persons and placed in her house is prima facie inconsistent with her innocence and consistent with her guilt. 6. The learned Government Pleader, taking me through the statements of P.W. 52, who is none other than the son of first accused and petitioner, would submit that on 4-7-2009, when C.W. 52 returned to his house at 6.30 p.m,. petitioner did not allow him to enter the house, on the other hand, she told him to go and stay in his friend's house. Accordingly C.W. 52 stayed in his friend's house. On the following day morning, at about 6.30 a.m. when C.W. 52 came to his house, petitioner took C.W. 52 him to her parent's house. The voluntary statement given by petitioner lead to recovery of her blood stained saree. The conduct of petitioner during the evening of 5-7-2009 and the information given by her to the first informant that some unkown persons has brought two unknown dead bodies has placed them in her house is not prima facie consistent with her innocence. The voluntary statement given by petitioner lead to recovery of her blood stained saree. The conduct of petitioner during the evening of 5-7-2009 and the information given by her to the first informant that some unkown persons has brought two unknown dead bodies has placed them in her house is not prima facie consistent with her innocence. The petitioner .had no reasons to ask her son C.W. 52 to stay in his friend's house without allowing him to enter into the house during the evening of 5-7-2009. Similarly, C.W. 52 was not allowed to enter the house in the morning of 6-7-2009. The recovery of bloodstained saree at the instance of petitioner would also give a prima facie indication of her complicity in crime. In view of this existence of prima facie case and also having regard to brutality of the crime as projected by prosecution, petitioner cannot be released on bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.