BOOTA AND Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the denial of bail to two petitioners, Boota and Mst. Sardaran, who were charged with the murder of the latter's husband. The petitioners challenged the prosecution's evidence and sought bail, which had been refused by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court correctly identified that the evidentiary weaknesses raised were matters for the trial court to determine. Regarding the female petitioner, Mst. Sardaran, the Court addressed the argument that she should be granted bail under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the proviso confers discretion, this specific ground had not been raised in the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the observation that the female petitioner remained at liberty to move the committing court or the Sessions Court for bail based on her sex. The Court also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the trial proceedings.
- Does the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer an absolute right to bail for a female accused?
- Can a ground for bail be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not urged in the lower courts?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioners Buta and Mst. Sardaran are charged for the murder of the latter's husband named Ghaman of village Mangtanwala. According to the prosecution case, the two petitioners who had contacted an immoral intimacy, poisoned the deceased to clear him out of their way. The petitioners moved for their bail before the Sessions Judge and the High Court unsuccessfully. The points urged for bail attacked the prosecution case on its weaknesses from the point of view of evidence. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has observed that that was a matter which would engage the considera--tion of the trial Judge to determine the guilt or innocence of the petitioners at the trial. It appears that the proceedings have been considerably delayed in the committing Court having now lasted for more than a year. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has directed that the matter be disposed of expeditiously and we expect that this direction is being fully implemented, so that the inquiry is completed without any avoidable loss of time.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Mst. Sardaran being a woman should have been granted bail under the proviso to section 497 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proviso relied upon confers a discretion on the Courts, but it seems that Mst. Sardaran's bail was never sought from the Courts below on that basis. However, Mst. Sardaran can still move the committing Court or the Sessions Judge in case she is committed for trial there, for her bail on the ground of her sex, if so advised.
3. This petition is dismissed.,