' The petitioner-complainant has filed this petition for cancellation of bail before arrest of Mst. Ijaz Ahmad and Mst. Surayya, respondents, granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 9-2.1994.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel strenuously urged that the respondent-ladies had assisted their co-accused in committing the murder of Mst. Zubaida alias Bedan (real, sister of the petitioner) and her daughter Mst. Sughra in broad daylight; that the Court below wrongly granted bail before arrest to the respondent on the sole ground of womanhood; and that the D.DA. Who appeared for the State did not properly assist the Court and oppose the respondents' bail petition.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 urged that the trial Court had rightly granted pre-arrest bail to the said respondents as their case was covered by proviso under section 497 of the Cr.P.C. He pointed out that Mst. Ijaz had a suckling baby aged about one year and Mst. Surayya was an unmarried girl and it was not safe to keep her in jail. He places reliance on the case of Mst. Zuhra v. State 1989 PCr.LJ 1865. Learned State counsel did not support the present application and adopted the arguments raised by the respondents' learned counsel.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am not persuaded to cancel the bail of respondents Nos.1 and 2. No doubt they are alleged to have assisted their co-accused in committing the murder of Mst. Zubaida and her daughter Mst. Sughra but the fact remains that their case is covered under the proviso to section 497 of the Cr.P.C. And the Court below had the discretion to grant anticipatory bail them, keeping in view the principles embodied in section 497 of the Cr.P.C. The respondents were allowed bail about 8 months ago and there is nothing to show that they misused their liberty in any manner.