JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.05.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in A.B.P. No. 185 of 2022 in connection with Basia P.S. Case No. 01 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was responsible for commission of suicide by the daughter of the informant, who was in love with someone and as the informant prevented her daughter from making phone calls and due to that very reason, the daughter of the informant has committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge, Gumla while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the three co-accused persons in view of the serious allegation against them, allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the opposite party no.2 herein. Though not specifically mentioned the reason for the granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party no.2, was that the allegations against the opposite party no.2 was not so serious, as that of the co-accused persons and additionally she being a woman deserves leniency of the court, hence, the Sessions Judge, Gumla, granted her anticipatory bail. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 that in para -25 of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598 , para -4 of which reads as under:- “4. Apart from the above, certain other considerations which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubts as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail” (emphasis supplied) And submits that the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla failed to take into consideration the factors as mentioned in the said order. It is next submitted that subsequently charge sheet has been submitted in the said case by the police involving the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no.2 as well. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para -16 of the said judgment, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the entirety of consideration of the law, leniency of law is to be shown to a woman in the matter of consideration of bail but that cannot be the sole ground for granting of bail to a woman. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the entirety of consideration of the law, leniency of law is to be shown to a woman in the matter of consideration of bail but that cannot be the sole ground for granting of bail to a woman. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that this is not a case where anticipatory bail has been granted to the opposite party no.2 solely on the ground that she is a woman. It is then submitted that upon the conjoint reading of the second and third paragraph of the page no.2 of the impugned order dated 26.05.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gumla in A.B.P. No. 185 of 2022 it is crystal clear that the allegation against the three co-accused persons were serious in nature which obviously means that the allegation against the petitioner no.4 of the said anticipatory bail petition, who is the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition, was not as serious as the co-accused persons and the additional undisputed ground that a woman deserves leniency in the matter of bail which has been provided for in the first proviso of Section 437 . It is next submitted that under such circumstances the impugned order cannot be termed either illegal, or unjust or perverse which are the sine-qua-non for setting aside the order granting anticipatory bail to an accused person; more so when the opposite party no.2 –accused person has been facing the trial in which two witnesses have already been examined and there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 of any misconduct, which will entail cancellation of her bail. It is next submitted that undisputedly on the date on which, the opposite party no.2 was granted bail, there was no allegation of commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the subsequent filing of the charge sheet for a serious offence is not a ground for cancellation of the bail already granted to the opposite party no.2. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in para -4 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh (supra), it has categorically been mentioned that the considerations mentioned in such paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Though the grounds which is to be considered for granting bail has not been specifically mentioned in any statute, yet in the first Proviso of Section 437 of Cr.P.C., there is a categorical mentioning of leniency being shown inter-alia to a woman. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla has categorically mentioned that the allegation against the three co- accused persons, which included a woman also was serious, which obviously means that the allegation against the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition was not so serious, as the allegation against the co-accused persons. The petitioner has not whispered a word to show that such observation of the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla, in respect of the petitioner, that only the allegation against the three co-accused persons was serious, was suffering from any short coming. 10. So under such circumstances of the case, when the allegation against the opposite party no.2 was not serious and additionally on the ground that she is a woman, the anticipatory bail was granted to her and she has not committed any misconduct during the trial which is going on for more than three years after she was granted the anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.