ORDER : Criminal Petition No.200097/2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail and Criminal Petition No.200014/2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.131/2015 of Gogi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 448, 504, 114, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, there was a civil dispute between the accused and the deceased and after the death of the husband of the deceased, accused No.1 being the elder brother of the husband of the deceased used to ask for transfer of the property and also used to tell her to go and stay in her parents house. In that background, on 14.12.2015 at about 11.00 p.m. when the deceased and her son Ramanagouda were sleeping in their hut and when the deceased woke up for attending the first nature call, at that time she saw accused Nos.1 to 3, they entered into her hut by holding the kerosene dabba and a matchbox, they expressed that they wanted to kill her and her son. With an intention to commit the murder of the deceased and her son, they pored the kerosene oil on her and set ablaze. Immediately, she came out by making a screaming voice. Then, the nearby residents came and extinguished the fire by putting the blanket over her body and brought her to the Government Hospital. In the Government Hospital, the dying declaration was recorded and on the basis of the said dying declaration a case was registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State in both the cases. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases are that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and there are in consistencies of statement of the deceased in the dying declaration as well as in the complaint. It is contended that there was no civil dispute pending in between the deceased and the accused persons. It is also contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and even if the petitioners went and pored the kerosene and lit the fire in the hut, in that event, the entire hut ought to have been burnt. It is contended that there was no civil dispute pending in between the deceased and the accused persons. It is also contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and even if the petitioners went and pored the kerosene and lit the fire in the hut, in that event, the entire hut ought to have been burnt. It is further contended that in her first statement she has stated that she was sleeping along with her son and in the subsequent statement she has diverted her say and has stated that her son was not there in the house. On these grounds, he contends that a false case has been registered against the accused. Further, it is contended that already charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, the petitioners are not required for the purpose of further interrogation or investigation and if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petitions. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently argued contending that there is corroboration between the dying declaration and the complaint, which has been recorded by the A.S.I. in the hospital. He has also contended that the accused persons have gone to the hut of the deceased and mercilessly have pored the kerosene and lit the fire only with an intention to cause the death of the deceased to grab the property. He has further contended that the dying declaration is considered to be a substantiate peace of evidence against the accused persons and there are overt-acts on the part of the petitioners, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petitions. 6. I have gone through the copy of the complaint, the dying declaration and the charge-sheet material made available by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Whether there are in consistencies in the complaint and the statement of the deceased at the time of dying declaration are the matters which have to be adjudicated at the time of trial and not at this premature stage. 7. Whether there are in consistencies in the complaint and the statement of the deceased at the time of dying declaration are the matters which have to be adjudicated at the time of trial and not at this premature stage. On perusal of the complaint and the other material, it indicates that accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the hut of the deceased and thereafter by uttering the words that they have came there to kill her and her son, accused No.1 has pored the kerosene, accused No.2 instigated accused Nos.1 and 3 to pore the kerosene and lit the fire and accused No.3 has lit the fire and thereby ablaze the deceased and as a result of the said burn injuries, subsequently the deceased has died. By going through all the materials, it indicate that only because of the overt-acts of accused Nos.1 and 3 the deceased has died due to the burn injuries. When there is a direct allegation against accused No.1 and there is prima facie material to connect the accused to the alleged crime which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, in that light, it is not just and proper to release accused No.1 on regular bail. Even though there is no overt-act attributed against accused No.2, but she has accompanied accused Nos.1 and 3 to the place of incident and there she instigated them to pore the kerosene and lit the fire, in that light, it is not just and necessary to exercise the discretionary power vested with this Court to grant the anticipatory bail to accused No.2. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. However, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner in Crl.P. No.200014/2017 i.e., accused No.2 to file the fresh petition, if she surrenders before the jurisdictional Court.