ORDER JAWAD RAHIM, J.—The petitioners are accused 2 to 5 facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC along with one Rahulla, accused No. 1. They are not yet arrested. Apprehending arrest, they are seeking for a direction under Section 438, Cr. P.C. to the Investigating Officer to release them in the event of arrest. 2. From the prosecution papers, it is noticed a woman by name Sabeena was rushed to the hospital on 8.3.2011 for treatment of burn injuries she had suffered. Her statement was recorded in which she revealed she was married to accused No. 1 Rahulla and out of their wedlock, she gave birth to a child. She was living in the accommodation occupied by her husband and petitioners. She alleged that despite demands of petitioners and her husband Rahulla, having been met by her parents’ three years ago at the time of marriage, their greed was not satisfied and they continued to pester her to, secure additional dowry. They harassed her continuously resulting in mental turmoil and physical pain. While in this situation, she tried to reconcile but it was of no avail. Her husband Rahulla was aggressive and deprived her of consortium of married life. He was drunkard and indulged in violence frequently. On 8.3.2011, he picked up quarrel and assaulted her. Being unable to bear the onslaught, she threatened to commit suicide and poured kerosene on herself. She set fire, which resulted in injuries. However, while under treatment, the second statement was recorded in which she directly indicted her husband Rahulla as the person who had not only poured kerosene but set fire. Subsequently, she was again examined by the Taluka Magistrate before whom she gave a further statement revealing the harassment caused to her by the petitioners herein along with her husband. On that basis, the petitioners are also arrayed as accused numbers 2 to 5 along with accused No. 1. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the mother of accused No. 1 while petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are her husband’s relatives. Accused No. 1 is, therefore, described as the main offender, while petitioners are either instigators or connivers in the act achieved by him. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as far as the petitioners are concerned, none of them lived in the house occupied by the deceased and the first accused. Accused No. 1 is, therefore, described as the main offender, while petitioners are either instigators or connivers in the act achieved by him. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that as far as the petitioners are concerned, none of them lived in the house occupied by the deceased and the first accused. They are living at different places away from the matrimonial home. 5. While the learned prosecutor opposes bail, pointing out that precious life of an innocent girl soon after marriage is lost due to burn injuries caused by the petitioners and thus they are not entitled to bail. 6. However, as could be seen from the material in possession of the prosecution, the petitioners are arraigned on the basis of the third statement given by the deceased during her lifetime, which after death is a dying declaration. If she accepts what she spoke about them is the allegations against petitioners would attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A but does not indicate their participation in the act of setting her to fire on 8.3.2011 which act she has in unequivocal terms attributed to her husband, the first accused. In these circumstances, even if what is found in dying declaration is proved by the prosecution, petitioners may have to answer a charge different from Section 302 of IPC, which the trial Court has to decide. 7. Hence, without expressing anything further on the merits and with the observations that any observations made to the prosecution case shall not prejudice the prosecution in any manner, petition is allowed. (1) The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer in charge of investigation of Crime No. 14/2011 within two weeks from now. On their appearance, the Investigating Officer may arrest them but they shall be released, if they execute bonds for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the said order. (2) The petitioners shall, after arrest and release, shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall report once in a week on Saturdays between 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. and subject themselves to interrogation without causing impediments. (3) The petitioners shall not tamper or indulge or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (4) The petitioners shall apply for grant of regular bail within three weeks after arrest. (3) The petitioners shall not tamper or indulge or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (4) The petitioners shall apply for grant of regular bail within three weeks after arrest. The benefit of this order shall continue till the disposal of that petition. In case of default in compliance with this condition, the direction issued shall stand revoked and there shall be no impediment for the Investigating Officer to arrest them.