ORDER : 1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No.11216010220243of 2022 registered with Pethapur Police Station, Gandhinagar for offences punishable under Sections 302,114, 201 and 120(B) of IPC and 135 of the G.P. Act. 2. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the present applicant submits that the present applicant has been shown as an accused in the matter since she was found travelling along with her husband on an Activa two wheeler and the images were captured in the CCTV footage. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the wife and the minor daughter of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) were staying separate since last 1½ years, as there was continuous harassment. 2.1 Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) was drunkard and used to beat the wife and therefore, she has started staying separate and 15 days prior to the incident, the daughter had come to stay with the father - Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) and thereafter, wife of the Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) had also joined the matrimonial home. 2.2 Mr. Pandya, learned advocate submitted that as per the prosecution case, on the date of the incident, as per the FIR there were blood stains on the t-shirt of the minor daughter and when people inquired about it, the minor daughter was not explaining the fact, but rather was evading and giving evasive replies and thereafter, it came to be known that the mother and the daughter had quarrel with Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) and fed-up with the quarrel, both together had given blow on the head with the pestle and a cut on the neck with the paper-cutter and as per the complaint of brother of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased), both, his sister-in-law and nephew were fedup with the domestic quarrel and therefore had caused death of his brother. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant further submits that the applicant having 15 years boy. He therefore, prays this Court to release the applicant on regular bail. 3. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State assisted by Mr. Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate, submits that it is a pre-planned murder with the assistance of the co-accused. He therefore, prays this Court to release the applicant on regular bail. 3. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State assisted by Mr. Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate, submits that it is a pre-planned murder with the assistance of the co-accused. It is submitted that the wife of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) was in an illegal relation with the co-accused and as per the demonstration panchnama, the co-accused who is the husband of the present applicant had assisted the wife and daughter of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) to murder and the minor girl was made part of their plan and she was instigated to kill her own father by way of using paper-cutter. It is submitted that since the child could not use that force, the co-accused i.e. the husband of the present applicant had killed Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) by using cutter and assisted in giving blows with the pestle. 3.1 It is submitted by Mr. Sharma, learned APP for the respondent – State that the said facts get corroborated by the clothes, which have been discovered at the instance of the accused. He further submits that the present applicant had also assisted in killing Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased), as all the accused had planned to grab the property of the deceased and it is submitted that the present applicant and her husband joined in the murder since, they wanted to usurp the property of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) for sending their son for further education in foreign country. 3.2 Mr. Sharma, learned APP for the respondent – State submits that the photographs and CCTV footage from the nearby place, suggests that the present applicant and her husband had joined together reaching the house of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased) for execution of plan and thereafter, while returning, they have changed their clothes. It is submitted that the clothes were surrendered by the present applicants and the clothes worn by her during the course of offence were burnt. The panchnama suggests that those burnt clothes were shown by the present applicant. 3.3 Mr. Sharma, learned APP for the respondent – State further submits that there are CDRs connecting the present applicant with the wife of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased). The panchnama suggests that those burnt clothes were shown by the present applicant. 3.3 Mr. Sharma, learned APP for the respondent – State further submits that there are CDRs connecting the present applicant with the wife of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased). He further submitted that these are the strong proof against the present applicant to suggest that she was a party to the crime and that she was part of criminal conspiracy. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant. 3.4 Mr. Jani, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 SCC Online 1020. 4. Countering the said arguments, Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the FSL report does not show that any burnt clothes were sent for examination nor any blood stains found from the clothes, which were alleged to have been submitted by the present applicant. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the presence of the applicant along with her husband on the Activa and at the nearby time suggested of the murder would not suggest any case of conspiracy from the side of the applicant as she may have gone along with her husband. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant that no statements of the neighbors have been recorded to suggest that the present applicant had entered the house of the deceased and that she was present at the place of offence. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant referring to the charge-sheet and submits that the immediate witness was Mr. Hasmukhbhai Keshavbhai Patel, who was called by wife and daughter of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased), he too had not seen the present applicant near the house of the deceased. 5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The case of the prosecution against the present applicant and her husband is through the demonstration panchnama, the blood stains on the clothes of the husband of the applicant and further the case that the clothes, which were worn during the time of offence were burnt by the applicant and the co-accused. However, the FSL report does not suggest any burnt clothes sent for examination. However, the FSL report does not suggest any burnt clothes sent for examination. The dupatta, leggings, top and lower which are alleged to be worn by the accused – present applicant does not mark any presence of blood stains nor the report suggests that those were burnt clothes. The allegation against the present applicant that she was present along with her husband – co-accused and she had held the legs of Ghanshyambhai Vishnubhai Patel (deceased), but there are no fingerprint or chance prints been collected from the place of offence nor any blood stains found on the clothes of the applicant. Considering these facts, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant. 5. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being I-C.R. No.11216010220243 of 2022 registered with Pethapur Police Station, Gandhinagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall; [a] Not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse the liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned trial court; 6. The authorities shall adhere to its own Circular relating to COVID-19 and, thereafter, will release the applicant only if she is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.