JUDGMENT M G Uma, J. - The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.173/2022 of Udayagiri Police Station, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Smt.Nazeema. 2. Heard Sri. Abubacker Shafi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. She is innocent and law abiding citizen. She has not committed any offences as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the police. Therefore, she is before this Court. It is submitted that the deceased had married accused No.1, who is the brother of the present petitioner. The marriage was taken place during July 2019. However, she died in an unnatural manner on 10.11.2022. The petitioner is a married lady residing at her matrimonial house. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she along with her husband had visited the informant about 3 or 4 months earlier to the incident and treated the deceased with cruelty and compelled her to bring dowry. The allegation for causing the death of the deceased is against accused No.1, who is already apprehended and is in judicial custody. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. She is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and she is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. She is the sister of accused No.1. It is specifically stated by the informant that she used to visit the house of the deceased and treated her with cruelty. The voluntary statement of accused No.1 also disclose that it was this petitioner who treated the deceased with cruelty. She is the sister of accused No.1. It is specifically stated by the informant that she used to visit the house of the deceased and treated her with cruelty. The voluntary statement of accused No.1 also disclose that it was this petitioner who treated the deceased with cruelty. Under such circumstances, she is required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is absconding, since the date of registration of the case. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and she may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. The allegations made against the present petitioner is that she is the sister of accused No.1 and she used to treat the deceased with cruelty. However, it is specifically stated that it was accused No.1, who is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. The informant in her first information has specifically stated that about 3 or 4 months earlier to the incident the deceased had informed the informant that this petitioner had came along with her husband and had treated the deceased with cruelty. Even thereafter, the petitioner and her husband used to insist her to bring dowry and were treating her with cruelty. Apart from that, there are no other allegations against the petitioner. Even though, the investigation is still at the initial stage. The nature of allegation does not require the petitioner for custodial interrogation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.173/2022 of Udayagiri Police Station, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on her appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge her on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences; c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by her. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.