JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11207078210372 of 2021, registered with Kankanpur Police Station, District: Panchmahals for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for learned advocate Mr. R. D. Dave for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent – State.

2.1 Rule. Learned APP waives service.

3. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application filed by the present applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is charged with the aforesaid offences, however, the ingredients of the said offences are not satisfied.

3.1 It is further submitted that the incident in question is purely an accident and the deceased had died due to falling down into the canal due to lost balance. Further, it is submitted that the applicant and the deceased had long marriage span of about 18 years and had cordial relations. Moreover, it is submitted that when the incident in question had occurred, their daughter Himali was with the deceased. Referring to her statement, the learned advocate submitted that the daughter of the deceased was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and was quite capable of giving statement. It is further submitted that in her statement before the police, she has clearly stated that the deceased had some mental health issues and was undergoing treatment. Further, she has stated that her mother on the day of incident, her mother was not well and while they were going on scooter, en route, her mother felt like dizziness and hence, they parked the scooter roadside near the canal, however, suddenly her mother lost balance and fell down in the canal and while so, she caught her hand and hence, she also fall into the canal, however, and the people gathered there, had saved them. The learned advocate submitted that in the incident, the deceased had sustained severe injuries, and eventually, succumbed to the injuries. Further, after the incident which had taken place on 27.07.2021, the deceased survived for about 15 days and only on 11.08.2021, she died and during treatment, the applicant had made all the effort for well being of the deceased.

3.2 Last but not the least, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is a government servant, working as Police Sub Inspector and has reputation in the society. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is urged that present application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.3 The learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation as well as during trial and will not flee from justice.

3.4 The learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for remand. It is further submitted that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant - accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has, with all vehemence at her command, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature a