ORDER

Heard Sri.M.S.Shyam Sunder, learned Senior counsel for Kum.Vandana P.L., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.Vinayaka V.S., the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent and B.V.Shankara Narayana Rao, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Chandrashekara T.A., for impleading applicant.

2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

with the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.17/2023 of Varthur P.S. for the offences punishable under Sec. 498A and 304B read with Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition act arraigning the present petitioners as accused No.2 to 4 respectively before Addnl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bangalore Rural in the interest of justice.”

3. At the out set, memo came to be filed. Placing the memo on record petition against petitioner No.3 is dismissed as he has been arrested and the petition has become infructuous.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by Smt. Madhuri W/o Guruprasad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) R/w Sectio 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and registered in Crime No. 17/2023 on 26.01.2023 by Varthur Police Station.

5. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the complainant was married to Sri. Guruprasad and thereafter they led a married life for sometime in a happy manner and a son aged about 6 years was born in the marriage. The complainant further stated that her husband had illicit relationship with others and in that regard they demanded dowry from the parents of the complainant and he was harassing the complainant.

6. Later on, the father of the complainant lodged another complaint stating that complaint in Cr.No.17/2023 was done to death in a suspicious manner. A case came to be registered based on the said complaint under Section 304B IPC. The matter is being investigated. Husband of the Madhuri was arrested and during the pendency of the present petition, brother-in-law of the deceased Sri. Pramod is also arrested. Thus the remaining petitioners are the parents-in-law of deceased Smt.Madhuri.

7. The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain grant of anticipatory bail is turned-down by learned District Judge vide order dated 10.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. No.

368/2023. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

8. Sri. M.S. Shyam Sunder, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and aged 73 years and 67 years respectively had no role or whatsoever in the alleged incident and they are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation agency and therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

9. Per contra, Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended non appearance of the present petitioners has resulted in scuttling the investigation process backward and sought for rejection of bail petition.

10. Sri. Shankar Narayana Rao, learned Senior counsel representing the defacto complainant who is the father of the deceased, vehemently contended that material on record would goes to show that the husband of Smt. Madhuri, who is non other than the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 had illicit relationship and had publically claimed that the marriage with the Smt. Madhuri is only for the purpose of society and he being the male, can have any number of relationship out side the marriage and in order to have his ambitions cleared, all petitioners including husband of the Smt. Madhuri have conspired to the death and ended life of Smt. Madhuri, said offence being a heinous in nature and a menace in the society, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

11. In view of the rival contentions, this Court