JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This criminal petition is filed by the petitioneraccused No.5 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to release her on anticipatory bail in Crime No.38/2020 of Old Hubballi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 498A and 302 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Gangavva w/o Chandru Dundi gave complaint on 17.04.2020 stating that her daughter Karemma has been given in marriage to accused No.1-Mallikarjun 12 years ago and after marriage, Karemma was residing with her husband-accused No.1 and inlaws/ accused Nos.2 and 3, brother-in-law/accused No.4 and sister-in-law/accused No.5-the petitioner herein. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with a woman and the said fact was disclosed by Karemma to the complainant. It is further alleged that on 16.04.2020 at about 9.30 pm one Devendra informed the complainant and again one Parshuram has called to said Devendra that Karemma husband, mother-in law, father-in-law and family members have set fire to Karemma and she suffered burn injures. It is further alleged that the complainant and her family members were proceeding to the house of accused No.1 and on the way they saw Karemma was taken in a TUM TUM vehicle and at that time, on seeing them, accused No.1 who was in the TUM TUM vehicle went away and the deceased told them that accused Nos.1 to 5 set fire to her and locked in a room and she suffered burn injuries. The said Karemma was admitted KIMS hospital and on 20.04.2020, Karemma succumbed to burn injuries. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.38/2020 of Old Hubli Police Station. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. Anticipatory Bail application filed by the petitioneraccused No.5 in Crl.Misc. No.23/2020 came to be rejected by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.5 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused No.4 who is similarly placed to that of accused No.5 has been granted with bail and therefore on that ground petitioner-accused No.5 is also entitled for anticipatory bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.5 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused No.4 who is similarly placed to that of accused No.5 has been granted with bail and therefore on that ground petitioner-accused No.5 is also entitled for anticipatory bail. It is his further submission that CWs-16, 17 and 18 have stated in their statement that accused No.1 was standing outside the house wherein smoke was coming out. It is his further submission that accused No.1 and the deceased were residing in the 1st floor and accused No.5 and her husband are residing in their house. Petitioneraccused No.5 is residing along with her husband in the same area in different house. It is his further submission that presence of the accused No.5 was not stated by the said witnesses. It is his further submission that the deceased was alive between 16.04.2020 to 20.04.2020 and the Investing Officer has not made any efforts to secure the presence of Tahasildar for recording the dying declaration of the deceased Karemma. It is his further submission that as per the endorsement made on the requisition dated 17.04.2020 given by SHO, old Hubballi to Medical Officer, KIMS, Hubballi stating that victim Karemma is not fit to give statement and the said endorsement was made at 12.40 a.m. on 17.04.2020. It is his further submission that when deceased was not in fit condition to give her statement but her statement was recorded on 17.04.2020 at 9.05 p.m. to 9.20 p.m. by taking endorsement of the Plastic Surgery P.G. doctor on requisition on 17.04.2020 that patient is fit to give statement at present and it was at 9.05 p.m. The said dying declaration dated 17.04.2020 has been recorded by PSI, Old Hubballi Police Station wherein the deceased has alleged to have stated that accused Nos.1 to 5 have set her fire and locked her in a room. It is his further submission that Investigation Officer ought to have secured the Tahasildar and got recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. It is his further submission that no role was played by this petitioner-accused No.5. Charge sheet has been filed and no custodial interrogation of the petitioneraccused No.5 is necessary. With this he prayed to allow the petition. 5. It is his further submission that no role was played by this petitioner-accused No.5. Charge sheet has been filed and no custodial interrogation of the petitioneraccused No.5 is necessary. With this he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contract , the learned HCGP has contended that in the dying declaration recorded on 17.04.2020, the deceased has clearly stated the role of the petitioner-accused No.5 along with the other accused Nos.1 to 4 setting her fire and locking in a room. It is her further submission that merely because the accused No.4 has been granted with bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., petitioner-accused No.5 is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. It is her further submission that charge sheet material prima facie goes to show the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.5. It is her further submission that, if petitioner-accused No.5 is granted with anticipatory bail, she will tamper the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, she prays to reject the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. 7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) AIR SC 312 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing various previous judgments and guidelines, has enumerated the following factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration by courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal code, 1860, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 8. Even though, the deceased has stated in her dying declaration, the role of petitioner-accused No.5 along with accused Nos.1 to 4 in setting fire to her and locking in a room, but the charge sheet witnesses CWs.16,17 and 18 have stated in their statement that petitioner-accused No.5 was not present on the spot at the time of incident. The Investigating Officer himself has recorded the dying declaration, but he ought to have secured the Tahasildar to record the dying declaration. The charge sheet has been already filed and the presence of the petitioner-accused No.5 is not required for any custodial interrogation. Accused No.4 has been granted with bail by this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 submitted that when once the accused was granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. co-accused could not be denied bail merely because of applying under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The said contention is fortified by a decision rendered by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kailash V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 3 Crimes(HC) 453 M.P. wherein it is held as under: "Once an accused was granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Co-accused could not be denied bail merely because of applying under Section 438 of Cr.P.C." 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for grant of anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.38/2020 of Old Hubballi Police Station with the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Court. ii. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today. iii. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iv. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.