Mst. SABBAN BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Sabban Bibi, who is accused in F.I.R. No. 159 of 2000 for offences involving trespass and murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner exhorted her five co-accused, including her husband and son, to commit the crime. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that she is a woman and that the only specific allegation against her is 'Lalkara' (exhortation). The Court considered whether the petitioner's vicarious liability and the effectiveness of the alleged exhortation warranted continued incarceration. The Court held that the determination of the significance of the exhortation and the petitioner's liability are matters to be resolved during the trial, rendering the case one of further enquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner is a woman, falling under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and has no prior criminal history. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the case against her required further investigation at trial.
- Is a woman accused of a non-bailable offence entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an allegation of 'Lalkara' (exhortation) alone constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail when the case requires further enquiry?
- Should the determination of vicarious liability be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner stands involved in case F.I.R. No,159 of 2000, dated 25-7-2000 registered with Police.
Station Machiwal, District Vehari. Allegation against the petitioner is that of exhorting her co- accused who were five in number including her husband and son. As a result of which, trespass as well as murder of Mst. Nazia was committed.
2. Bail is sought on the ground that only Lalkara is attributed to her and secondly she is woman. The question of her vicarious liability will be determined after holding the trial, as such case against the petitioner is one open to further enquiry.
3. Bail is opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as State on the ground that not a mere preverbal Lalkara is attributed, it was in fact effective exhortation, as a result of which the occurrence took place. As to what is the real significance of the exhortation, is a question which to my mind will be determined at the time of trial. Case of the petitioner is covered by 1st proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. She is in judicial lock-up for the last two months and has no previous criminal history. The petitioner as such is admitted to bail on her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Vehari.