ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.145/2016 of Gurumitkal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, The deceased Sarithabai was given in marriage to the son of the petitioners about four years prior to the alleged date of incident and she has begotten son and daughter and they were residing together in the house of the petitioners. On 07.10.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., when the deceased asked the petitioners that she is intending to go to Bombay along with her husband, the petitioners told the deceased that her husband alone can go to Bombay and abused her in filthy language. When the deceased pressurized to go to Bombay along with her husband, petitioner No.1/accused No.1 brought kerosene can and poured the same on her and set her ablaze and thereafter, she was shifted to Yadgiri Government Hospital in an ambulance. On the basis of the statement given by the deceased, a case has been registered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that there was no ill-treatment or harassment by the petitioners to the deceased in demand of dowry. There was dispute between the husband of the deceased and the deceased in respect of distribution of property. Due to that reason, she herself poured kerosene and lit fire and has committed suicide. There is no role played by the petitioners. He has further contended that petitioners are innocent persons and the entire material placed on record would indicate that the said incident has taken place in a heat of passion and the petitioners were not having any intention to commit the alleged crime. As the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioners are no more required for further investigation or interrogation. It is further contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and they are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. It is further contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and they are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the entire prosecution case depends on the complaint as well as dying declaration given by the deceased. In the dying declaration, the deceased has clearly stated that it is accused No.1 who brought the kerosene and poured the same and lit fire on the deceased and there is clear overtact on the part of accused No.1. He has also contended that accused Nos.1 and 2 together have committed heinous offence of causing death of the deceased by pouring kerosene and setting fire. At this juncture, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is likelihood of they tampering with the prosecution witnesses, they may abscond and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was quarrel in between the petitioners and the deceased on 07.10.2016 in respect of the deceased intending to go to Bombay along with her husband. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that due to civil dispute, the deceased herself has poured kerosene and lit fire by herself and has committed suicide. But the same has to be adjudicated only at the time of trial. As could be seen from the dying declaration, it is accused No.1 who brought the kerosene can and poured the same on the deceased and set her ablaze and as a result of the said act, the deceased Sarithabai has died. When there is clear overtact on accused No.1 and when she has directly involved in the alleged crime, I feel that it is not just and proper to release petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on bail. When there is clear overtact on accused No.1 and when she has directly involved in the alleged crime, I feel that it is not just and proper to release petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on bail. However, taking into consideration the other aspects of the complaint which indicate that petitioner No.2/accused No.2 was present at the time of the alleged incident and he has only abused her in filthy language and except that there is no other overtacts alleged against him, I feel that if petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is released on bail by taking adequate security and by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is dismissed. The petition in respect of petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; (iii) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail. (v) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.