B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Application for cancellation of bail is filed by the applicant-State of Gujarat against the impugned judgment and order dated 11. 1. 2002 passed by Shri V. B. Mayani, additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in criminal Misc. Application No. 23 of 2002 filed by the respondents-accused releasing them on bail on certain terms and conditions mentioned in it in connection with CR No. 5/02 registered with jamnagar City a Division Police Station for the offences under Sections 306, 114 ipc and Section 3 (1) (10) and Section 3 (2) (5) of the Atrocities Act. ( 2 ) COMPLAINANT-GOVABHAI Khengabhai vaghela belonging to Scheduled Caste community of "chamar" lodged FIR at early morning hours at 3. 15 a. m. on 3. 1. 2002 with Jamnagar A Division Police station against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 r. w. s. 114 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of atrocities Act for committing murder of his young daughter-Shilpa @shital, who is hardly 19 years, working in the factory of the respondent-accused No. 1-Bhikhubhai manilal Ghunchala alleging that his daughter was burnt alive in the room of factory premises of respondent No. l with the help of his wife i. e. respondent No. 2- accused-Madhuben. It was stated in the complaint that his daughter refused to go to work at Bhikhabhais place because of his character and behaviour towards her. The incident alleged to have taken place on the previous day i. e. on 2. 1. 2002 in the afternoon hours at about 2. 00 p. m. Thus, there was a delay of about 13 hours in lodging FIR. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, the complaint was investigated by Dy. S. P. Shri C. C. Rajput, which was later on entrusted to Shri r. M. Pandey. After taking over investigation from Shri Rajput, Shri pandey carried out investigation and after recording statements of several witnesses, including Manjulaben and Jayesh, came to the conclusion that in this case offence under Section 306 is made out and not under section 302 IPC. Accordingly, he arrested both the respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 306, 114 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) and Section 3 (2) (5) of the Atrocities Act. ( 4 ) WITHIN 2 days of their arrest i. e. on 9. 1. Accordingly, he arrested both the respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 306, 114 IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) and Section 3 (2) (5) of the Atrocities Act. ( 4 ) WITHIN 2 days of their arrest i. e. on 9. 1. 2002, both the accused submitted bail application before the court of Additional sessions Judge, Jamnagar and within 2 days thereof i. e. on 11. 1. 2002 the learned judge allowed the bail application by his order running into 12 types pages. While allowing the bail application, the learned judge entered into the arena, which is prohibited at the time of deciding the bail application. He has attributed the motive to the Dy. S. P. Shri Pandey, who was investigating the case and practically acquitted the accused even before the evidence is lead and the case is tried. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge has totally ignored several judgments of this court as well as Honble Supreme Court on the point of bail in serious offences like section 306 IPC and Atrocities Act. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the victim-girl was belonging to Scheduled Caste community of chamar. She was only 19 years and there is a prima facie material in the form of statements of two witnesses manjulaben and Jayesh that respondent no. 2 abused Shilpa regarding her relations with her husband i. e. accused No. l and immediately thereafter the incident took place in room of factory premises of the respondent-accused No. l wherein she was burnt alive. ( 6 ) I am at pains to state that this is second order passed by the learned Judge releasing the accused of an offence U/s. 306 ipc, which is coming up before me within a span of less than a month, where the learned Judge by appreciating the evidence granted bail overlooking several judgments of this court and of Honble Supreme Court that at the time of deciding bail court should only look at prima facie material and should not go into merits of the case or appreciation of evidence. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the matter required admission with interim order of suspending the order of bail passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge releasing respondents- accused on bail. Accordingly, this petition is required to be admitted. Hence, Rule returnable on 1. 5. 2002. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the matter required admission with interim order of suspending the order of bail passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge releasing respondents- accused on bail. Accordingly, this petition is required to be admitted. Hence, Rule returnable on 1. 5. 2002. Further implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 11. 1. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, jamnagar releasing the respondents- accused on bail shall remained suspended till further order and Shri Pandey Dy. S. P. , who is present in the court shall, immediately effect their arrest. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it will be open to the respondents to move this court for early hearing of the case after their arrest. It is also made clear that having considering the entire case papers produced before me by Mr. Pandey Dy. S. P. , this order is passed which may be modified later on if the respondents-accused satisfy this court that no error was committed by the learned judge while passing the impugned order of bail. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the nature of the bail orders passed the learned Additional sessions Judge, it is desirable that the learned District Judge would seriously consider withdrawal of bail applications work from Shri V. B. Mayani, Addl. Sessions judge, Jamnagar, forthwith. ( 10 ) D. S. Permitted. Copy of this order be given to Mr. K. C. Shah, learned APP forthwith for its implementation. .