JUDGMENT (ORAL) Vishnu Sahai, J. - Perused the order dated 27-4-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Sessions Court. Mumbai refusing bail to the applicant and the affidavit of Sr. Inspector of Police. Mr. A.B. Bagadi. attached to the D.C.B. Unit No. VII. cm.' Mumbai. 2. This is an application for bail in a case under Sections 302. 307. 397 read with 34 and 120B. IPC and Sections 3. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. On 12-8-1997 at 11.15 a.m. one Ram Lavangare. Chairman of Shiva Temple situated at Jeet nagai. Versova. Andheri (W) Mumbai lodged an FIR at D.N. Nagar police station on the basis of which C.R. No. 572 of 1997 for the offences referred to above was registered. In the FIR it was alleged that on the said date at about 10.15 a.m. some unidentified persons killed Gulshan Kumar Due near Shiva temple by using fire arms and as a consequence of the firing four others were also injured. 3. On 13-8-1997 the investigation of the said C.R. was taken over y D.C.B. CID. Mumbai and during the course of the same, 8 persons namely: (i) Javed @ Javed Kalya (ii) Rafiq @ Ahmed Shaft Ahmed Ansari (iii) Mohammed Ali Hasan Shaikh (iv) Rafiq Mohammed Isaq Phalke (v) Imtiyaz Dawod Merchant (vi) Adil Mohammed Ali Khan (vii) Pratap Singh Sukbir Singh (viii) Sabir Ali Mazar Hussain were arrested. Pursuant to the interrogation of the said persons the investigating agency unearthed a criminal conspiracy to murder Gulshan Kumar. Co-accused Mohammed Ali Hasan Shaikh who was one of the 8 persons to be arrested was granted pardon on 2711-1997. On 28-11-1997 (next day) his statement as an approver was recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 47th Court incharge 19th Court. Esplanade. Mumbai. Co-accused Mohammed Ali Hasan Shaikh who was one of the 8 persons to be arrested was granted pardon on 2711-1997. On 28-11-1997 (next day) his statement as an approver was recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 47th Court incharge 19th Court. Esplanade. Mumbai. Pursuant to further investigation and interrogation of the said accused persons the complicity of some other accused persons came to light and charge sheet against the applicant and 18 others namely: (i) Javed @ Javed Kalya (ii) Rafiq @ Ahmed Shaft Ahmed Ansari (iii) Mohammed Ali Hasan Shaikh (iv) Rafiq Mohammed Isaq Phalke (v) Imtiaz Dawood Merchant (vi) Adil Mohammed Ali Khan (vii) Pratap Singh Sukbir Singh (viii) Sabir AliMazhar Hussain (ix) Abdul Kavi Mohammed Idris Shaikh (x) Mohammed Azim Abdul Kavi (xi) Aftab Alamlrshad Ahmed Khan (xii) Ramesh Saduhuram Taurani (xiii) Jaffar Sharif Mohammed Inayatulla (xiv) Faiyaz Ahmed Mohammed Isaq Chaugule (xv) Shafiq Ahmed Mohammed Shaikh (xvi) Wasim Abdul Mohammed Khan (xvii) Rashid Dawood Merchant zas filed. It is significant to point out that in the said 18 persons there are two sons of the applicant namely Imtiaz Dawood Merchant (at Sr. No.5) and Rashid Dawood Merchant (at Sr. No. 18) and in the said charge sheet third son of the applicant namely Mohammed Rauf @ Raja Dawood Merchant has been shown as a absonder. According to this prosecution. Rashid Dawood Merchant and Mohammed Rauf @ Raja Dawood Merchant had fired upon the deceased Gulshan Kumar and Rashid Dawood Merchant was identified by the eye witnesses at the test parade as the person who had fired upon him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously urged that the charge sheet shows that the applicant has been charged and the role of firing upon the deceased and killing him has not been assigned to her. He also urged that since the applicant is a lady, she would be entitled to the beneficial provisions contained in the provision to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. He finally urged that since extradition proceedings in respect of co-accused Nadeem Shaikh are pending in England and a final decision on them does not appear around the comer, it would take a considerable time before the trial of the applicant commences. Mr. Naik urged that cumulatively the said circumstances entitle the applicant to ball. 5. Mr. Mr. Naik urged that cumulatively the said circumstances entitle the applicant to ball. 5. Mr. Thakur, APP equally vocally urged that although the applicant has been charged sheeted as a conspirator, she does not deserve bail. He urged that tile statement of the approver Mohammed Ali Hasan Shaikh shows that the applicant was a part of the conspiracy hatched to murder Gulshan Kumar: had prior knowledge that Gulshan Kumar would be murdered and her sons Rashid Dawood Merchant and Mohammed Rauf @ Raja Dawood Merchant fired upon Gulshan kumar. He also urged that from the approver's statement, it is evident that the applicant was receiving direct instructions from Dubai based gangster Abu Salem and Kayoom @ Chacha, at whose instance, the accused acted as hired assassin and killed the deceased. He further contended that the approver's statement shows that she transported the fire arms from the shooter to the approver after the commission of the offence and facilitated two shooters namely her son Rauf @ Raja Merchant and Anil Sharma by sending them from Mumbai to Nasik in a tempo with the help of one Pratap Singh. Mr. Thakur urged that parts of the approver's statement have been corroborated by the statement of two other witnesses. Mr. Thakur contended that although the applicant was named in the charge sheet which was filed on 28-11-1997, she absconded and could be arrested only two years thereafter from Lucknow, on 12-10-1999. He strenuously urged that when apprehended, the applicant was found in possession of two forged passports and one fire arm. He contended that one of the passports showed that she had visited Dubai during the period of her absconsion. He urged that three C.Rs, all pertaining to Kotvali police station, Barabunki, U.P, are pending against the applicant; they being: C.R. No. 223/99 under Section 325 of Arms Act. C.R. No. 224/99 under Section 467, 468,471, 420 IPC C.R. No. 225/99 under Section 467, 468, 471,4201PC In the said factual matrix, Mr. Thakur contended that the applicant does not deserve being granted bail and in case bail is granted to her, would ,abscond. 6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. It is true that normally where a person is charged with the aid of Section 120B IPC and is a lady, this Court is inclined to grant bail. Thakur contended that the applicant does not deserve being granted bail and in case bail is granted to her, would ,abscond. 6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. It is true that normally where a person is charged with the aid of Section 120B IPC and is a lady, this Court is inclined to grant bail. But, I wish to make it clear that there is no thumb rule that the said considerations make the grant of bail imperative. In the ultimate analysis even in cases where such considerations exist a host of other factors have to be taken into account by courts the paramount amongst them being gravity of the offence and the imminent likelihood of the accused absconding. In the instant case the gravity of the offence is writ large. Pursnant to a preached plan in the heart of Bombay in broad daylight bullets were pumped in the body of Gulshan Kumar a doyen in the world of music cassettes causing turmoil in the metropolis of Bombay the echoes of which can still be heard. The imminent likelihood of the applicant absconding in the event of her being released on bail is equally writ large. As seen earlier after the incident she had absconded for nearly two years; had a forged passport during this period and once visited Dubai. Balancing the over all circumstances in my view this is not a appropriate case where in the applicant should be granted bail. Consequently. I reject this bail application. The trial court would not be influenced by this order while deciding the trial because the observations contained herein are only relevant to the disposal of this application. Application rejected