ORDER : Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.268/2015 registered by Gadag Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC are seeking for being enlarged on bail. 2. Wife of accused No.1 Smt.Laxmi Beleri lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging that her marriage took place in the year 2007 and for about 4 years they lived happily and they have a son born out of their wedlock. It was also stated by her that as per the customs prevailing in their community, 1 tola gold, cash of Rs.10,000/- and utensils were given as dowry. It is further alleged that petitioners along with their sister Smt. Hemavati (accused No.3) started harassing, illtreating and abusing the complainant for having not been able to secure more dowry by way of gold and cash which should have been commensurate with their status. It is further stated by the complainant that about 3 days prior to the date of incident, she had been abused in filthy and foul language and she had been assaulted by the accused persons and being dejected by the act of accused persons and apprehending that accused persons would continue to harass her parents by demanding more dowry, she thought if she were to die, demand for dowry would also stop and as such, she poured kerosene on herself and lit fire resulting in severe burn injuries being sustained. Hence, she alleged that her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law are responsible for the complainant taking said step. Hence, she lodged a compliant against them for suitable action being taken. 3. It is the contention of Sri. Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that contents of complaints are false and at no point of time, petitioners had harassed the complainant and alleged incident took place at 04:30 a.m., when petitioners were not present at the time of incident. It is the immediate cause which will have to be taken into consideration when there is an allegation of demand for dowry resulting in death and in the instant case, at the time of alleged incident, petitioners were not there and in fact petitioners had shifted the complainant to Hospital for treatment, which conduct would indicate that there was no intention on the part of petitioners to harass the complainant. It is further stated that they have not committed any crime and they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would also rely upon the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100156/2016 dated 14.03.2016, whereunder coordinate bench of this Court had granted bail to accused No.3 and urges same as a ground for petitioner also being enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent – State by relying upon the charge sheet material would contend that in the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of petitioners either terrorizing prosecution witnesses or inducing them and as such, he prays for rejection of the petition. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would indicate that undisputedly deceased had married accused No.1 during July 2008 and incident in question took place on 01.11.2015 i.e., 7 years after the marriage. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Thus, presence of petitioners would not be required by the Investigating Officer for any custodial interrogation. 7. Perusal of the averments made in the complaint itself would clearly suggest that even according to the complainant, for the first four years after marriage, there was no demand for dowry from the accused persons and complainant had lead a very happy married life with accused No.1. According to the complainant i.e., deceased, demand of dowry started after five years, which requires to be examined after trial. As to whether there was any act perpetrated on the part of petitioners which instigated the deceased to commit suicide, that too on the alleged demand for dowry, will have to be thrashed out during the course of trial. This Court also cannot loose sight of the fact that deceased was an elected Gram Panchayat Member and if there was any alleged harassment on her by accused on account of demand for dowry she having not lodged any complaint to any authority and there being no other material available on record in this regard, it cannot be said prosecution has put in prima-facie case. Except the self serving testimony of the complainant and C.Ws.10 to 12, who are all members of complainant’s family, there is no other material available on record. Except the self serving testimony of the complainant and C.Ws.10 to 12, who are all members of complainant’s family, there is no other material available on record. Statements of C.Ws.15 and 16 which have been very heavily relied upon by prosecution prima-facie would indicate that on the basis of information furnished by the complainant’s father, they came to know about the harassment meted out to the deceased by accused persons and they did not have personal knowledge. These facts as discussed hereinabove are sufficient enough for this Court to grant bail to the petitioners. However, to allay the apprehension expressed by prosecution, it would be necessary to put the petitioners on stringent conditions. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is hereby allowed and petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.268/2015 registered by Gadag Rural Police Station on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one independent solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the dates of hearing, unless there are exceptional circumstances; (ii) Petitioners shall appear before the Gadag Rural Police Station once in 15 days i.e., on 15th and 30th of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. and mark their attendance; (iii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional Court without express permission; and (iv) Petitioners shall not threaten, terrorise or induce prosecution witnesses. In the event of any of the conditions imposed by this Court is violated, prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.