CAN A mother’s act of violence against her hungry child also be an indictment of society’s failure to feed its poorest? Answering that question, the Gujarat High Court (HC) has granted bail to a pregnant woman accused of “fatally assaulting” her two-year-old daughter over repeated demands for food.The court weaved together the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, Islamic teachings, Pannalal Patel’s Manvini Bhavai, Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, Aristotle and Mahatma Gandhi to conclude that, “When starvation drives a mother to such an extreme act, such failure is collective rather than individual,” to the woman who was in jail with her infant child.Justice H D Suthar of the Gujarat HC, while granting regular bail to Lakhi Solanki, repeatedly returned to the central idea that while the criminal process must take its course, the circumstances leading to the alleged offence cannot be separated from poverty, hunger and the state’s constitutional obligation to protect vulnerable families. The order states, “Criminals are not born out but made,” describing the incident as a reflection of “the failure of social welfare mechanisms” rather than merely an individual moral failing.The case arose from the death of the applicant’s two-year-old daughter, Eesha. According to the prosecution, Solanki’s husband had been away on a voyage for nearly six months and had neglected his family, leaving them in conditions of starvation. During this period, the applicant left her matrimonial home with her daughters and began living with another man under a Maitri Karaar (agreement to cohabit without marriage).The prosecution alleged that on March 19, 2026, Eesha repeatedly demanded food. Irritated by the child’s persistent cries arising from hunger, the applicant allegedly beat her. The child later went to sleep, but when the mother attempted to wake her, she found that she unconscious and took her to Smimer Hospital in Surat, where doctors declared her dead. The postmortem attributed injuries to the assault. The prosecution also relied on the statement of the deceased child’s three-year-old sister, who is the only eyewitness examined during the investigation.Seeking bail, counsel for the applicant submitted that she in her pregnancy of over than seven months and accompanied by one infant inside prison, while another young child remained alone outside. It was further argued that she had no criminal antecedents, the investigation had concluded, the chargesheet had been filed and no further recovery remained to be made. Continued incarceration, the defence submitted, served no investigative purpose.The state opposed the application, contending that the offence was of the gravest nature. It argued that the postmortem report clearly established that the child had been beaten, that the statement of the surviving minor child prima facie implicated the applicant, and that releasing her on bail could create the possibility of tampering with evidence.Story continues below this adConsidering the arguments and referring to the sequence of events, the court observed that after the assault, the applicant herself rushed the child to hospital upon finding her unconscious. This, the court said, indicated that “there was no mens rea or malafide intention” on her part and that “it was merely a reckless act.” It also noted that the alleged assault occurred after the applicant, unable to satiate her daughter’s hunger, became annoyed by the child’s constant cries for food.Justice Suthar went on to characterise the case as “not merely an individual tragedy but it is a profound indictment of society and raises fundamental questions of social justice and morality.” Considering the grounds for seeking bail and the record that the applicant had remained in custody since March 19, 2026, with one infant living with her in prison and another without parental care outside prison, the court held that since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the settled principle that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” would apply and that prolonged incarceration before trial would amount to “pre-trial conviction.”Citing several literary and religious texts, the order opens with Justice Suthar recalling Pannalal Patel’s celebrated Gujarati novel Manvini Bhavai, which depicts the horrors of the Chhappania famine, alongside Dukhiyaran, the Gujarati translation of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables. Later in the judgment, the Court returns to Manvini Bhavai, describing it as “a profound literary exploration of famine, human dignity, social inequality, and the struggle for survival” and summarising its enduring message in the words, “Man is not evil but hunger that is evil.”The Court also drew parallels with Jean Valjean, the protagonist of Les Misérables, who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, observing that Victor Hugo’s work raises enduring questions about “justice, poverty and compassion.” It referred to Bishop Myriel’s mercy in transforming Valjean’s life and also cited Charles Dickens’ depiction of how extreme poverty can drive ordinary people towards crime. Aristotle’s observation that “poverty is the parent of revolution and crime” also found place in the judgment.Story continues below this adJustice Suthar further grounded the discussion in religious teachings on feeding the hungry. Quoting the Bhagavad Gita, the Court order cites the verse, “The righteous who partake of food after sharing with others are freed from all sins.” It then referred to Christ’s teaching in the Bible, “For I was hungry and you gave me food,” before citing the Islamic teaching, “He is not a believer whose stomach is filled while his neighbor goes hungry.” The Court concluded that these traditions collectively demonstrate that allowing a person to perish from hunger is “not merely a social failure but a moral and spiritual failure.”Linking these observations to constitutional principles, the Court emphasised that children possess fundamental rights and referred to Article 45, which obligates the State to endeavour to provide early childhood care and education. It also highlighted the constitutional duty to improve nutrition and public health, observing that the present case exposed a breakdown in those obligations. “When starvation drives a mother to such an extreme act, such failure is collective rather than individual,” the Court observed, adding that the incident reflected “the failure of social welfare mechanisms and highlights the moral responsibility of the State and society to protect vulnerable families, especially women and children.”Allowing the bail application, the High Court directed the applicant’s release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety, subject to standard conditions. Before parting, 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 since one life has to enter in this world.” The order concludes with a stark reminder that encapsulates its central theme: “A hungry person seeks bread before philosophy.”