In a judgment that goes beyond the legal aspects of a criminal case, the Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to a pregnant woman accused of fatally assaulting her two-year-old daughter, observing that the tragedy raises larger questions about poverty, hunger and society’s responsibility towards vulnerable families.
While making it clear that the criminal trial will continue, the court said the circumstances surrounding the incident cannot be viewed in isolation. It described the case as not just an individual tragedy but also a reflection of the failure of social welfare systems to protect those living in extreme poverty.
Tragic Incident Led to Criminal Case
The case relates to the death of two-year-old Eesha, whose mother, Lakhi Solanki, has been accused of assaulting her after the child repeatedly asked for food.
According to the prosecution, Solanki’s husband had been away on a sea voyage for nearly six months and had allegedly neglected the family, leaving them in severe financial hardship and hunger.
During this period, Solanki left her matrimonial home with her daughters and started living with another man under a Maitri Karaar, an agreement to cohabit without marriage.
The prosecution alleged that on March 19, 2026, the hungry child repeatedly cried for food. Frustrated by her daughter’s continuous demands, the mother allegedly beat her.
The child later fell asleep. When Solanki later tried to wake her, she found the girl unconscious and immediately rushed her to SMIMER Hospital in Surat, where doctors declared the child dead.
The postmortem report stated that the child had died due to injuries sustained during the assault.
Prosecution Opposed Bail
The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that it involved a very serious offence.
It relied on the postmortem findings, which allegedly confirmed physical assault, and also referred to the statement of the deceased child’s three-year-old sister, who was the only eyewitness examined during the investigation.
The prosecution further argued that releasing the accused on bail could create the possibility of influencing evidence.
Defence Highlighted Humanitarian Grounds
Seeking bail, Solanki’s lawyer told the court that she was more than seven months pregnant and was living inside prison with an infant child, while another young child remained outside without parental care.
The defence also pointed out that she had no previous criminal record, the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet had already been filed, and there was no further recovery left to be made.
According to the defence, keeping her in jail would serve no further investigative purpose.
Court Says There Was No Evidence of Intent to Kill
While considering the case, Justice H. D. Suthar observed that after the alleged assault, the mother herself rushed the child to hospital as soon as she realised something was wrong.
The court noted that this indicated there was no apparent intention to kill the child. Instead, it described the incident as a reckless act committed after the mother became distressed because she could not satisfy her daughter’s hunger.
The court observed that the alleged incident occurred after prolonged poverty and starvation had pushed the family into an extremely difficult situation.
Court Calls It Society’s Collective Failure
The High Court said the case should not be viewed only as a criminal matter but also as a serious reminder of society’s responsibility towards poor and vulnerable families.
The order stated that “criminals are not born but made,” observing that poverty and hunger often create circumstances that push people towards desperate actions.
Justice Suthar remarked that when starvation forces a mother into such an extreme situation, the failure is not only personal but also collective.
The court further observed that the incident reflected shortcomings in social welfare mechanisms and highlighted the constitutional responsibility of the State to protect women and children facing severe hardship.
Literature, Religion and Philosophy Quoted in Judgment
The judgment drew upon several literary, philosophical and religious works to explain the relationship between hunger, poverty and justice.
The court referred to Pannalal Patel’s famous Gujarati novel Manvini Bhavai, which portrays the suffering caused by famine, and quoted its message that “Man is not evil but hunger is evil.”
It also discussed Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, recalling the story of Jean Valjean, who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. The court said the novel continues to raise important questions about justice, poverty and compassion.
The judgment also mentioned how Bishop Myriel’s kindness transformed Jean Valjean’s life, and referred to Charles Dickens, whose writings often showed how extreme poverty can drive ordinary people towards crime.
Justice Suthar further quoted the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who had observed that “Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.”
Religious Teachings Emphasise Feeding the Hungry
The High Court also referred to teachings from different religions to underline the moral duty of helping those in need.
From the Bhagavad Gita, the court quoted the teaching that those who share food with others before eating are freed from sin.
It also cited the Bible, recalling Christ’s words: “For I was hungry and you gave me food.”
The judgment further referred to an Islamic teaching that says a person cannot truly be a believer if they sleep with a full stomach while their neighbour goes hungry.
The court observed that these teachings all carry a common message—that allowing someone to suffer from hunger is not merely a social failure but also a moral and spiritual failure.
Constitutional Responsibility Highlighted
The High Court linked its observations to the Indian Constitution, pointing out that children have fundamental rights and referring to Article 45, which directs the State to provide early childhood care and education.
It also referred to the constitutional responsibility to improve nutrition and public health, observing that the present case exposed failures in fulfilling those obligations.
The court remarked that the tragedy should serve as a reminder of the need to strengthen social welfare systems so that vulnerable families do not reach such desperate situations.
Bail Granted With Conditions
After considering all the circumstances, including the fact that Solanki had remained in custody since March 19, 2026, the court held that the trial was likely to take considerable time.
It reiterated the legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” observing that prolonged imprisonment before the conclusion of the trial would amount to a form of pre-trial punishment.
The High Court therefore granted regular bail to the accused on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety, subject to standard conditions.
A Message Beyond the Courtroom
Before concluding the judgment, Justice Suthar described the case as “a clarion call for compassion, social responsibility and renewed commitment to ensuring that no mother or child is left to suffer the indignity of starvation.”
The order ended with a powerful observation that captured the central message of the case:
“A hungry person seeks bread before philosophy.”
Also Read: Waiting For Your Tax Refund? Beware Of Fake Income Tax Notices On WhatsApp https://www.vibesofindia.com/fake-income-tax-whatsapp-messages-refund-scam-cyber-alert/
