STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SUSHILABEN PRABHUDAS TANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat has filed this Misc. Criminal Application against the impugned common judgement and order dated 28.9.2001 passed by Shri V.B.Mayani, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 478 of 2001 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 479 of 2001, whereby the Learned Judge rejected the Criminal Misc. Application No. 479 of 2001 filed by accused Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna but allowed the application filed by accused Sushilaben Prabhudas Tanna who is aged 57 years and ordered to release her on bail for the offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered as Crime Register No. I-430 of 2001 with Jamnagar City B Division Police Station.

(2.) Shri K.C.Shah, Ld. APP for the applicant vehemently submitted that in the instant case, the same Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri V.B.Mayani dismissed the Anticipatory Bail application being Cri.Misc. Application No.468/01 filed by the respondent-accused Sushilaben Prabhudas Tanna just before 9 days of grant of her Regular Bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 478 of 2001. While rejecting the Anticipatory Bail application filed by the respondent-accused, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge by his speaking order running into 9 typed pages observed that there was a very strong prima facie case against the accused, therefore, though she is a lady accused she could not have been released on bail. Mr.Shah further submitted that in Para 8 of his earlier order dated 19.9.2001, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in no uncertain terms observed that, "merely because 2 minor children of deceased Sandhya who are aged 3 years and 7 months only and that there is no one to look after them would not be a ground to release the accused Sushilaben on bail." Inspite of this clear observations by the Learned Judge, for the reasons best known to him, within 9 days, granted Regular Bail application of the respondent-accused Sushilaben by observing in Para 13 of his impugned judgement that, "When the earlier bail application of Sushilaben was rejected small children of deceased Sandhya were not in jail but now they are in jail, therefore, there is a change in circumstance and therefore she should be enlarged on bail." Mr.Shah submitted that this reasoning assigned by the Learned Judge for releasing the respondent-accused on bail runs contrary to what he observed in his earlier order dated 19.9.2001 while dismissing the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the respondent-accused wherein he had clearly observed in Para 8 of his judgement that there is no one to look after the minor children of deceased Sandhya would not be a ground to release her on bail. He also submitted that the grandfather of minor children and father of deceased Sandhya has already claimed the custody of his grand children i.e. children of his daughter Sandhya in the bail application submitted by the respondent-accused Sushilaben but without considering the same, the Learned Judge has released her on bail only on the ground that minor children had to stay in jail alongwith accused Sushilaben. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of releasing the respondent-accused on bail should be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In the instant case, the respondent is duly served with the notice issued by this Court but no one appears for her, therefore, this bail application is decided in her absence after hearing Ld. APP Shri Shah.