applicant is the wife of deceased, since the applicant is a lady therefore she is entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., occurrence giving rise to present criminal proeedings is at the spur of moment on account of grave and sudden provoccation, therefore, same is covered under the fourth exception to Section 300 I.P.C.,there is nothing on record to show that there was a calculated mens-rea with the applicant to commit the crime in question or the occurrence is the outcome of a pre-planned act of the named/charge sheeted accused, the criminality alleged to have committed by named/charge-sheeted accused may not travel beyond Section 304 part 1I I.PC as no deadly weapon was used, the police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, yet in spite of above the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial , the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5), the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, the clean antecedents of applicant, applicant being a lady is clearly entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the present application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
