( 1 ) THIS Application is filed by the State of Gujarat for cancelling the bail order dated 12 passed by Mr. S. M. Pirzada learned Addl. City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad in Criminal Mis. Application No. 1535 of 1982 releasing the respondent-accused on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498a of I. P. C.

( 2 ) COMPLAINANT-NAVINCHANDRA father of the deceased Mamta lodged the complaint on 7- 7-92 before the Maninagar Police Station against (1) his son-in-law Ashish and (2) Ansuyaben mother-in-law of deceased Mamta which was registered by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498a of I. P. C. Ansuyaben is also the cousin of the complainant i. e. daughter of his natural aunt. Thus the parties were not only known to each other but also closely related to each other. The marriage of deceased Mamta and Ashish took place on 20-2-92 at Ahmedabad. Complainant Navinchandra is resident of Delhi. After the marriage for the first time Mamta went to Delhi at her parent place on 15-5-92 and stayed there upto 5-6-92 for about 20 days. At Delhi she told her father (complainant) that she was tortured by the accused by saying that she was not modern and forward that she did not know proper English that she also did not know how to cooking. She was asked to arrange for Rs. 25 0 She also stated to her father that her husband is having illicit relations with other woman and therefore also she was ill-treated by her husband. It is also staled in the complaint that on 22-6-92 accused Ashish had written a letter to the complainant and called his in-laws to come immediately by the first available train to Ahmedabad and he also asked them not to try to contact him either on phone or by letter. Thereafter a letter dated 27 or 28 June addressed by the deceased Mamta was received by the complainant by which she had asked her parents to come immediately to Ahmedabad and to take her away by giving any excuse. She also staled in that letter that the she was mentally tortured by the accused and efforts were made to give her divorce. Thereupon the complainant contacted Mamta on phone. At that time accused Ansuyaben-mother-in-law of deceased told him that there was nothing serious. And therefore he did not go to Ahmedabad immediately and they thought they would go to Ahmedabad at their convenience. But on 3-7-92 he received a telephonic message from Shri Vinodbhai Shah maternal uncle-in-law of deceased Mamta that Mamta died due to burns injuries so they shall come to Ahmedabad as early as possible. On that very day they left for Ahmedabad and after making proper inquiry about the incident on 7-7-92 i. e. after tour days of the incident the complainant lodged the complaint againt his son-in-law and mother of his son-in-law for the aforesaid offences before the police.

( 3 ) WHEN the accused were arrested is not borne out from the record of this case. But it seems that they must have been either arrested on 7th or 8th as on 8-7-92 they have filed bail application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad for releasing them on bail which was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction.

( 4 ) NOW before deciding this application a few material events are required to be staled which are as under: (1) The present accused alongwith his mother Ansuyaben-co-accused filed a common bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1451 of 1992 before the Court of learned Addl. City Sessions Judge. That application was filed on what date is not borne out from the record. However it must have been filed any time prior to 17 because Criminal Misc. Application No. 1535 of 1992 was filed by the present respondent-accused for releasing him on bail on 17 wherein it is staled that earlier bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1451 of 1992 was withdrawn as not pressed from the Court of Mr. R. M. Atodaria learned Addl. City Sessions Judge. It also appears from the