ORDER : A.Y. KOGJE, J. This application is filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no. 1 by impugned order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 535/2017. By the aforesaid order the respondent no. 1 - a lady acc used, aged 32 years, has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R No. I-58/2017 registered with Joravarnagar Police Station for the offence under Sections 304-II, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the respondent no. 1 is enlarged on anticipatory bail on the wrong premise and the respondent no. 1 has mislead the Sessions Court into believing that the minor child of the deceased daughter of the applicant is in custody and protection of respondent no. 1, whereas infact, it is the complainant and his family with whom the child of the deceased daughter of the applicant is residing. The learned advocate for the applicant draws attention of this Court to the affidavits of individuals, who are the neighbours of the complainant to substantiate the stand that the child of the deceased daughter of the applicant is in custody and care of the complainant family and not in custody and care of the respondent no. 1. He therefore, submitted that bail deserves to be canceled as the same is granted on the basis of only this fact. 3. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and having gone through the documents on record, including the allegations made in the FIR and the impugned order, it is not entirely correct to argue that it is only the issue of care and custody of the child, which has influenced the Sessions Court to exercise discretion in favour of the respondent no. 1. The perusal of the order would indicate that the Sessions Court has considered the various other issues including the fact that the deceased was suffering from serious heart ailment as well as Thalasaemia. The PM report is also considered by the Sessions Court as reflected in the para no. 4 that the cause of the death is not ascertained to establish the death of the deceased to be suicidal or homicidal. 4. The PM report is also considered by the Sessions Court as reflected in the para no. 4 that the cause of the death is not ascertained to establish the death of the deceased to be suicidal or homicidal. 4. This Court has also taken into consideration the PM report, which indicates no physical injury caused and no opinion with regard to cause of death to ascertain the homicidal nature or suicidal nature. Over and above this, the respondent no. 1 being a lady and is aged 32 years, the Sessions Court has rightly exercised the discretion in her favour. Therefore, no interference is required. The application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.