ORDER : This bail petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.190/2018 of Hunasagi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 304B, 306 R/w Section 149 of IPC and offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since from the date of the arrest, petitioners are in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for enlarging the accused on bail among the grounds urged therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: It is evident from the complaint that the marriage of the deceased-Prema was performed with the petitioner No.1-Ramachandra @ Ramesh. After the marriage, for about 2-3 months they lead happy married life. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 started giving physical as well mental harassment to her by insisting her to bring two tolas of gold jewelry, same was informed by the deceased to the complainant and her parents, who consoled the Prema by visiting her matrimonial home. Such being the position, on the last day of Moharam festival, the deceased-Prema did not come to her parental house. Therefore, they searched for her, but on 22.09.2018, the dead body of Prema was found near the canal of Kembhavi gate. It is further stated in the complaint that on 21.09.2018 in between 4.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., deceased-Prema went near the Kembhavi canal for the purpose of washing the clothes and she drowned in the said canal for being not tolerating the harassment meted out by her husband as well as in-laws’ i.e., petitioners herein. Therefore, the accused are responsible for the death of Prema. In pursuance of the act of the accused, a case in Crime No.190/2018 came to be registered by the complainant, said to be paternal uncle of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners taken me through the averments made in the complaint as well as FIR and submits that petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the deceased and that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners taken me through the averments made in the complaint as well as FIR and submits that petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the deceased and that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime and there is no direct overt-act attributed against the petitioners to indicate that they have given physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased-Prema, which lead her to die by felling into the water canal near the Kembhavi gate. Further contended that the contents found in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet laid against the accused do not constitute offence under Section 304B of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further contended that accused No.3 is said to be the womenfolk and a psychiatric patient she required constant treatment, if not herself committing some injury, lead also by tearing the clothes. Petitioners are hail from respectable family having respect in the eye of the society, moreover they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to them. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for enlarging the petitioner on regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State has taken me through the averments made in the complaint and contends that the marriage of the deceased-Prema was performed with the petitioner No.1-Ramachandra @ Ramesh and thereafter she lead happy life only 2-3 months. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 began to give physical as well mental harassment to her by insisting her to bring two tolas of gold jewelry, same was informed by the deceased to the complainant as such her parents, who consoled her by visiting her matrimonial home, but due to the depression deceased lost her breath that too be within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, if the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society, therefore petitioners are not deserving for bail, these are all the contentions taken by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and seeking dismissal of the bail petition. 6. Therefore, if the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society, therefore petitioners are not deserving for bail, these are all the contentions taken by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and seeking dismissal of the bail petition. 6. In these context taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the State relating to the Crime No.190/2018, it can be seen that a charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.702/2018 came to filed stating that marriage of the deceased-Prema performed along with petitioner No.1/accused No.1-Ramachandra @ Ramesh and she lead a happy life only 2-3 months. Subsequently, petitioners and other accused began to give physical as well mental harassment to her by insisting her to bring two tolas of gold jewelry as dowry. As such, complainant as well as her parents of the deceased went to the matrimonial home of her and consoled her, despite of it Prema went under depression, on 21.09.2018 at about 4.30 p.m. she had been to the Kehmbhavi canal for the purpose of washing the clothes and she drowned into the canal, due to harassment meted out by the petitioners. The investigation officer thoroughly done investigation and laid the charge-sheet. However, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, there shall be an adverse impact on the society. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as opined that there is prima facie material against petitioner No.1-Ramachandra @ Ramesh, being her husband in committing the alleged offence, he is not deserving for bail. But, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are the in-laws of the deceased-Prema are entitled for bail. The apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Insofar as the petition of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is hereby rejected. 1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Insofar as the petition of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is hereby rejected. 1. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court where the case in S.C.No.1/2019 is pending; 2. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses; 3. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. If the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 violate any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands cancelled.