2002 PLP 1026 (MLD)
Mst. SABBAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1026 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SABBAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1026 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1026 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1026 (MLD) (Mst. SABBAN BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/452/148/149
Bail was sought on ground that accused was a woman and only Lalkara was attributed to her
Question of vicarious liability of accused was to be determined after holding trial
Case against accused, in circumstances, was of further inquiry
Bail was opposed on ground that not mere proverbal Lalkara was attributed, but it was in fact an effective exhortation as a result of which occurrence had taken place-- As to what was real significance of exhortation, was a question which would be determined at time of trial
Case of accused was covered by 1st proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was in judicial lock-up for last two months and had no previous criminal history
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz for the Complainant. Syed Altaf Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 6th September, 2000. The petitioner stands involved in case F.I.R. 11o.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 proverbal Lalkara is A 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 1 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 satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Vehari. H.B.T./S-402/L Bail granted.