Judgment 1. Petitioners namely Mrs. Almas Ara @ Rozy and Fahad Khan are facing trial in the case FIR No. 135/2011, P/S Saddar, registered against them along-with co-accused namely Dr. Maqsood Hussain Khan before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The case has been registered against them on 04.07.2012 with the allegation that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 34, 120-B, 326, 324 and 506 Ranbir Penal code. 2. During the pendency of trial, an application came to be presented by the petitioners herein before the learned trial court for being admitted them to bail, which has been rejected by the said court with the observations that since there is the accusations of hatching criminal conspiracy with other accused persons there was no occasion for the court to segregate the charge and held them entitled for grant of bail under Section 497 Cr.PC for deficient evidence as pleaded in the petition having not participated in the commission of offence of murder. 3. The said order has been challenged in terms of the revision petition before this Court. 4. Briefly stating the grounds projected in the instant Criminal Revision Petition are that the petitioners were arrested in connection with false and frivolous FIR No.135 of 2011, P/S Sadder. It is stated that the petitioners actually belong to Poonch and have constructed a house at Budshah Nagar, Natipora, Srinagar. It is also stated that the age of petitioner No.1 is more than 67 years and is suffering from gout and requires constant medical vigil. Furthermore, it is being pleaded that there are two sets of witnesses produced by the prosecution till date. One set of witnesses are the family members of the deceased, who have narrated the same story as projected by the police in the challan but on material aspect have contradicted each other; whereas the another set are the independent witnesses, cited as eyewitnesses, who have come before the court and stated that the petitioners have not caused any injury on the deceased but at the time of occurrence were standing near the wall of a different house. Petitioners have pressed into service post-mortem report and the report of the doctor who had examined the injured persons, who were family members of the deceased, to prove the contradiction in their story. Petitioners have pressed into service post-mortem report and the report of the doctor who had examined the injured persons, who were family members of the deceased, to prove the contradiction in their story. It is stated that the court after considering the arguments had dismissed the bail application vide order dated 16.12.2017, which is under challenge in the revision petition. 5. Respondents, in terms of the order dated 01.02.2017, were directed to file objections to Cr.Rev. No.52/2017, which they have accordingly filed, wherein it is pleaded as:— “That the factual aspect of the case of the petitioners is that on 04.07.2012, one lady namely Mst. Shameema W/o Gh. Mohd. Shad R/o H.No.114, Budshah Nagar, Natipora, Srinagar, report in Police Post, Chanapora with an application mentioned therein that on the same date at 09.00 PM, she along-with here family members were in their house and one Maqsood Hussain Khan who resides in their neighbourhood along-with his family members consists of two sons and wife namely Sadat Maqsood Khan; Fahad Maqsood Khan and wife Almas Ara @ Rozy entered forcibly and pelted stone on the main gate and were carrying lathies, iron rods(Tie Rods). On this, husband of the complainant came out from house and asked them the reason and requested to stop pelting of bricks, but all of them caught hold him and beat ruthlessly with lathies, bricks, knife with an intention to kill him, who was rescued by some other neighbours and was taken to hospital in injured condition by them etc. That, consequent upon this information, a case FIR No.135/2012 u/s 307, 120 B, 34, RPC, was registered at P/S Sadder. During the investigation, statement of witnesses were recorded and offences u/s 307, 34, 120-B Ranbir Penal code were established against Sadat Maqsood Khan; Fahad Maqsood Khan sons of Maqsood Hussain Khan; Maqsood Ahmad Khan S/o Dost Mohammad Khan and his wife Almas Ara @ Rozy. However, during treatment injured Ghulam Mohammad Shah S/o Mohammad Sultan Shah R/o Budshah Nagar succumbed to his injuries at SKIMS, Srinagar on 05.07.2012 and Section 302 Ranbir Penal code was added in the case. The dead body was taken into police custody and after completing all legal formalities, was handed over to the legal heirs for the last rights. However, during treatment injured Ghulam Mohammad Shah S/o Mohammad Sultan Shah R/o Budshah Nagar succumbed to his injuries at SKIMS, Srinagar on 05.07.2012 and Section 302 Ranbir Penal code was added in the case. The dead body was taken into police custody and after completing all legal formalities, was handed over to the legal heirs for the last rights. That, all the accused persons mentioned above were arrested on 06.07.2012 and thereafter remand was obtained in favour of accused persons from time to time. During investigation, weapon of offence baseball bat/lathe was recovered from the premises of accused persons house while as other weapon/tools used in the incident like knife, bricks, lathies were destroyed by the accused persons and accordingly Section 201 Ranbir Penal code was added in the case. Besides medical opinion in respect of deceased as well as injured persons was obtained and Section 324, 326 Ranbir Penal code were also included in the instant case. That, during investigation, all the four accused persons were found involved in commission of crime and sections 302, 307, 120-B, 326, 324, 506, 201 Ranbir Penal code were made out against them. The charge sheet of the said case was produced before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar on 01.09.2012 for juridical determination.” 6. Alongside the revision petition, petitioners have filed application seeking bail, wherein it is being pleaded that the petitioners have not committed any offence nor they are involved in the commission of offences as stated by the independent witnesses so produced. It is further pleaded that there are only two alleged eyewitnesses whose statements have to be recorded but they have not been produced since last ten months. It is the further contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.1(Mst. Almas Ara alias Rosy) being a woman can seek bail as a matter of right, apart from seeking bail as a female she can also seek bail on the ground that the witnesses produced so far have not involved her in the commission of offences. It is further pleaded that she is a chronic patient of renal disorder with gout arthritis and hypothyroid. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, who is a student, and in case he is granted bail he would be able to attend the classes. There is no question of jumping the bail. It is further pleaded that she is a chronic patient of renal disorder with gout arthritis and hypothyroid. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, who is a student, and in case he is granted bail he would be able to attend the classes. There is no question of jumping the bail. It is further pleaded that the accused persons would adhere to any condition which the court may impose. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioners can be granted bail because they are required to be present for trial during the period of trial and once the court is satisfied that they are attending the trial, they should be granted bail. 7. The prosecution has, in terms of the objections sounded that as the final report submitted before the trial court reveals that the accused persons have hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder and participated in the commission of offence, so they cannot take the plea that they are innocent. According to the prosecution, the witnesses who had been examined by them, have implicated the accused for the commission of offences. The offence which accused have committed is not against the complainant but is against the whole society. As per the prosecution version, the accused inflicted the blows on the vital parts of the deceased and also inflicted injuries to all the family members of the complainant resulting in death of the deceased, therefore, the accused cannot claim bail as the matter of right, though it is a fact that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life and liberty but the said right can be curtailed only in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is further contended that as the accused have committed heinous offence and as per the law the accused are to be kept in custody, so by detaining them in custody cannot be said that their rights, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, have been violated or restricted. Prosecution further submits before the court that keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the said offence the court is not bound to release the accused on bail. Prosecution further submits before the court that keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the said offence the court is not bound to release the accused on bail. Furthermore, it is submitted that the proviso attached to Section 497 Cr.PC is not mandatory in nature so as to be followed but is always subject to the discretion of the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that after investigation of case, final report was submitted before the learned CJM, wherein it was alleged that on the committal of the case to the court of Sessions, the petitioners along-with other accused were prima facie held guilty for commission of offence under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 Ranbir Penal code and have been charged for the commission of offences under relevant provisions of law. Copy of the final report submitted before the learned trial court indicates that prosecution having relied on more than 15 witnesses but among them only 07 have been examined. The witnesses who were examined include PW-1 Mst. Shameema, wife of deceased; PW-2 Farhana, daughter of deceased; PW-6 Mohd. Ashraf Bhat; PW-7 Abdul Majid Khan; PW-8 Shah Rahil, son of deceased; PW-12 Bashir Ahmad Lone and PW-15 Abdul Rakeeb Dar. 9. One of the accused namely Dr. Maqsood Hussain Khan seems to have been admitted to bail in pursuance of the order dated 27.06.2015. Mr. M.A.Qayoom, learned counsel, who was present in the Court when the matter was being heard, however, submits that the application bearing MP No. 01/2015 titled Shameema Akhter Vs. Maqsood Hussain Khan and anr. has been filed for cancellation of the said bail of Dr. Maqsood Hussain Khan. He has produced a copy of the MP No.01/2015, same is placed on file. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid emphasis on the argument which has also been taken before the learned trial court that there were two sets of witnesses examined by the investigating agency; one set belongs to family members of the deceased and another set of independent witnesses. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid emphasis on the argument which has also been taken before the learned trial court that there were two sets of witnesses examined by the investigating agency; one set belongs to family members of the deceased and another set of independent witnesses. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, who belong to the family members of the deceased, have projected the coloured version in tune with that of the police but the said depositions contain good number of contradictions with each other. The independent witnesses who too have been cited as eye witnesses by the investigating agency, according to him, have been unequivocal in stating that the petitioners herein and Dr.Maqsood Hassan Khan, who has been admitted to bail, have not inflicted any injury on the deceased but were standing near the wall of a different house at the time of occurrence. Not a single person including the petitioners entered into the house of the deceased. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the assumption of the learned trial court that the petitioners being the members of criminal conspiracy on the analogy that when the accused No.1 was hitting the deceased with baseball bat why the other accused persons did not take any step to save the deceased from his clutches, was unfounded. It is also his contention that there is no scope of influencing the witnesses as only the police witness and doctor were not examined. The father of accused No.1 has been released on bail to whom the allegation levelled is that he has used baseball bat. The status of health of accused (Mst. Almas Ara) is also sufficient to be taken note of for admitting her to bail. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his arguments relied on the following judgments:— (a) 2009(1) JKJ 346 (HC), Shalinder Kumar Vs. State of J&K (b) 2011(1) JKJ 508 (HC), Girija Koul Vs. State and Ors.; (c) 2010(4) JKJ 447 (HC), Ab. Rashid and Ors. Vs. State; (d) (2012) 2 SCC 150 , Jetha Bhaya Odedara Vs. Ganga Maldebhai Obedara (e) 2010(2) JKJ 378 (HC), Mohd. Khaliq Vs. State and Ors. 14. On the other hand, Mr. State of J&K (b) 2011(1) JKJ 508 (HC), Girija Koul Vs. State and Ors.; (c) 2010(4) JKJ 447 (HC), Ab. Rashid and Ors. Vs. State; (d) (2012) 2 SCC 150 , Jetha Bhaya Odedara Vs. Ganga Maldebhai Obedara (e) 2010(2) JKJ 378 (HC), Mohd. Khaliq Vs. State and Ors. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Asif Bhat, learned AAG submitted that any view for disposal of bail application on any questions of fact which are being contended by the petitioners for admitting them to bail would be highly improper, moreso when the evidence of the prosecution is yet to be concluded. He has referred the allegations levelled against the accused including the petitioners herein and stated that the criminal conspiracy is vividly deducible and so the learned trial court has rightly rejected the bail application. The objections filed to the bail application along-with relevant material on record necessitates to be taken note of for seeing the role of all the accused, which unerringly point out towards guilt of all the accused in the commission of offence of murder. 15. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not lay any absolute rule, according to him in case a female (petitioner no.1 herein) is involved in offence under Section 302 Cr.PC, she has to be admitted to bail as a matter of course or as a matter of right. Furthermore, according to him, the status of the health, pleaded by the petitioner No.1(female) would not render any support to the contentions raised, as the illness , if any, can be taken care of in the jail itself. 16. Considered the rival arguments and material available before me. 17. On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial court in the application for grant of bail, it is evident that the petitioners had before the said court raised various pleas including those noted above. It had been emphatic contention on their behalf that petitioner No.2 namely Fahad Khan is a student and minor and it would not be possible for him to pursue the studies inside the jail. While it is also being canvassed that all the accused are innocent. It had been emphatic contention on their behalf that petitioner No.2 namely Fahad Khan is a student and minor and it would not be possible for him to pursue the studies inside the jail. While it is also being canvassed that all the accused are innocent. It had been also pleaded that all the independent witnesses namely Abdul Majid Khan, Bashir Ahmad Pandith, Mohammad Ashraf, Lateef Ahmad have stated that when they heard the noise and reached on spot they found accused No. 1 holding a baseball bat in his hand and giving severe blows repeatedly on the vital parts of the deceased whereas the other accused were standing nearby without taking any part in the commission of offence. The statements of partisan witnesses namely Shah Rahil, Shameema and Farhana could not be relied to implicate the accused for commission of offence, is being also submitted. The petitioners having not taken any active role in the alleged commission of offence and there being no common intension or they being members of unlawful assembly, could not be said to have commit the offence of murder. The provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, as pleaded, could not be stretched for commission of offence on the basis of being the members of unlawful assembly. There was no prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy, was also the point taken before the learned trial court. The word ‘may’ appearing in Section 497 Cr.PC viz-a-viz sick, woman, child or person under 16 years of age is to be interpreted as ‘might’ or ‘shall’, was also raised, as the proviso is not a mere surplus age but was meant as exception to the rule laid down that bail could not ordinarily be granted in case of allegations which entails to death or life imprisonment. 18. The stand taken on behalf of the prosecution has been noted by the learned trial court that all the prosecution witnesses have implicated the accused for the commission of offence of murder and having been stated that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy, not only that but they barged into the house of the deceased and caught hold of him. While accused no.1 was hitting the deceased with the baseball bat the other accused had caught hold of his limbs so as to facilitate accused no.1 in the commission of offence. While accused no.1 was hitting the deceased with the baseball bat the other accused had caught hold of his limbs so as to facilitate accused no.1 in the commission of offence. It is noted by the learned trial court that the prosecution pleaded that the accused have committed heinous cold blooded murder so are not entitled for grant of bail. While exercising discretion for grant of bail, the court has to consider certain conditions such as heinousness of offence, heinousness of accusation, severity of punishment, character of the accused, the question of hampering the investigation or tampering with the evidence and also the nature of the offence and the impact of the crime on the society. These are most vital questions which must weigh in the mind of the court while exercising discretion in granting or refusing bail. 19. Learned trial Judge has accordingly rejected the bail application by taking note of the fact that the accused allegedly have hatched criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of that conspiracy committed murder of deceased, for which they were prima facie held guilty and charged accordingly. Reasonable grounds to exist for holding the opinion that the accused are not involved in the commission of offence for which they stand charged, have been found to be missing. It has also taken note of the fact that the family members of the deceased PW-1 Shamema and PW-2 Farhana have stated that the petitioner no.1 herein (Almas Ara) was urging, encouraging and coaxing the accused to hit the deceased more severely and even she urged other accused not to spare the other family members of the deceased. 20. Tentative opinion has also been framed while having noted that why the petitioners herein had not taken any positive step for rescuing the deceased from the clutches of accused no.1 at the time when he hit the deceased with the baseball bat. Prima facie, according to the learned trial Judge the conduct of petitioner, thus, was indicative of assuming the criminal conspiracy as alleged to have been hatched by the accused and so the case of the petitioners could not be segregated. Principle of law laid down in various cases has been noted, accordingly conclusion drawn. Other considerations i.e., grant or refusal of bail including seriousness of the charge, impact on the society and the stage of the case, was taken note of. Principle of law laid down in various cases has been noted, accordingly conclusion drawn. Other considerations i.e., grant or refusal of bail including seriousness of the charge, impact on the society and the stage of the case, was taken note of. It has also been gathered from the material that petitioner No.1 (Almas Ara) also had taken active role in causing death to the deceased. Relaxation permitted to be made in case of woman etc. has been stated to be not taken in isolation, for which observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court have been jotted down in the judgment and order dated 14 and 15th September, 1987 in Criminal Applications Nos. 1638 and 1679 of 1987 (R.Mahey v. Shashikant Chadha and Another). 21. It has been also noted hereinabove that the prosecution is banking upon the list of more than 15 witnesses among whom 07 witnesses have been examined till filing of the instant proceedings. The depositions of the witnesses on record, of which reference is made by learned counsel for the petitioners to lend support to his arguments have given their account of what they know or had observed about the occurrence. 22. It may be true that some of them i.e. witnesses have also narrated that the present petitioners were not engaged with the assault in so much active and violent manner accused no.1 has been but the family members i.e. PW-1 Shamema and PW-2 Farhana have been categoric in stating that the role of the petitioners was not passive to the extent that they could not be held to be a part of common concert, which had led them to assault the deceased and his family members at the venue of occurrence. It would be thus, unwise at this stage to comment upon the veracity or value of the statements of any other prosecution witness and the learned trial court too appears to have adopted the proper course in this regard. It would also be premature to opine that PW-1 Shameema and PW-2 Farhana have implicated the accused for being interested in the conviction of the petitioners and other accused. 23. It would also be premature to opine that PW-1 Shameema and PW-2 Farhana have implicated the accused for being interested in the conviction of the petitioners and other accused. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated any attempt made by the trial court or the High Court in commenting upon the merits when the trial is yet to be concluded and there being no occasion to have a final opinion on the merit of the evidence produced by the parties. Their lordships’ of the Hon’ble Apex Court have clearly enunciated that the court should not be dragged at the stage of bail to go into the minutest details and in an arena of conjunctures of hypotheses. It would also be proper to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 3240 , Kashi Nath Roy Vs. State of Bihar. Para-6 of the judgment shall be apt to be quoted hereunder:— “6. As embedded in the criminal jurisprudence obtaining in this country, courts exercising bail jurisdiction normally do and should refrain from indulging in elaborate reasoning in their orders in justification of grant or non-grant of bail. For, in that manner, the principle of "presumption of innocence of an accused" gets jeopardized; and the structural principle of "not guilty till proved guilty" gets destroyed, even though all sane elements have always understood that such views are tentative and not final, so as to affect the merit of the matter. Here, the appellant has been caught and exposed to a certain adverse comment and action solely because in reasoning he had disclosed his mind while granting bail. This may have been avoidable on his part, but in terms not such a glaring mistake or impropriety so as to visit the remarks that the High Court has chosen to pass on him as well as to initiate action against him, as proposed.” 24. Another judgment on the same subject is reported in AIR 2009 SC 1706 , State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle, para-10 of the said judgment reads as:— “10. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle, para-10 of the said judgment reads as:— “10. Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As noted above, at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated.” 25. Para 11 and 13 of the judgment of State of Orissa Vs. Mahimananda Mishra, reported in, (2018) 10 SCC 516 , shall also be relevant to be referred:— “11. It is common knowledge that generally direct evidence may not be available to prove conspiracy, inasmuch as the act of conspiracy takes place secretly. Only the conspirators would be knowing about the conspiracy. However, the Court, while evaluating the material, may rely upon other material which suggests conspiracy. Such material will be on record during the course of trial. However, at this stage, prima facie, the Court needs to take into consideration the overall material while considering the prayer for bail. 13. Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in going into the evidence on record in such a depth which amounts to ascertaining the probability of the conviction of the accused. On the other hand, the High Court has failed to appreciate several crucial factors that indicate that it was highly inappropriate to grant bail in favour of the respondent.” 26. Keeping the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in view while considering the entitlement of under trial to bail, I feel it improper to have comment on its value and weight to be given to it. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Jaggi v. State of Chatisgarh, reported in 2007 (56 AIC) 202 SC, disapproved the tendency to mention, while disposing of the bail application, the value of the evidence put-forth by the prosecution. The tentative findings which have been recorded by the Lord Chief Justice were held virtually amount to the regular trial and so the bail granted was recalled. 27. The tentative findings which have been recorded by the Lord Chief Justice were held virtually amount to the regular trial and so the bail granted was recalled. 27. The preposition that if two views are possible on appreciation of the evidence, one favourable to the accused has to be adopted too cannot be followed at this stage, as the said preposition is required to be taken into consideration at the time when the finding is to be recorded on the guilt or innocence of the accused. The observations of the judgment of this Court in Gandrab Singh v. State, [Bail Application No. 28/2008, (Jammu) decided on 10.11.2008], are also pertinent to be referred herein:— “The accused can be granted bail only if evidence which come on record overwhelmingly point towards non-involvement of the accused in the case. Where there are two view possible, the court must ordinarily refrain from exercising its powers under section 498 Cr. P.C while granting bail in such cases.” 28. It will be proper herein to refer the observations of their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan vs Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Anr. 1987 AIR 1613, 1987 SCR (3) 34, wherein their Lordships enunciated that no doubt liberty of citizen is to be zealously safeguarded by the court, nevertheless when a person is accused of offense like murder and there being prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place facts before the court. Liberty as further observed is to be secured through process of law which is administered keeping in mind the interests of accused, the near and dear of victims who lost his wife who feel helpless and believe and there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community, so that parties did not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. The learned Judge who had granted bail was held by their Lordships was unduly influenced by concept of liberty disregarding facts of the case. 29. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs. Harpreet Kour Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1992 SC 979 have observed that crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on the civilization of the day. Order is the basic need of any organized civilized society and any attempt to disturb that order affects the society and the community. 30. Harpreet Kour Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1992 SC 979 have observed that crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on the civilization of the day. Order is the basic need of any organized civilized society and any attempt to disturb that order affects the society and the community. 30. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu decided on 20.09.2012, their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court have observed “that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offense usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents”.............. “We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighted. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserve to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused. It is further observed that the period of custody of seven months, in our considered opinion melts into insignificance.” 31. In such circumstances, the approach of the learned trial court in refusing grant of bail during the currence of the trial cannot be said to be erroneous. 32. On consideration of the entire gamut of the case, I am of the opinion that exception meant to be carved out in terms of Section 497 Cr.PC for opining that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the accused are not involved in the commission of offence under Section 302 RPC, is not available. 33. The contention raised about the exception in terms of Section 497 Cr.PC for grant of bail in favour of Mst. Almas Ara - petitioner No.1 herein on being a woman while interpreting the word ‘may’ is to be used as ‘must’ or ‘shall’ needs to be also turned down in the light of the authoritative principle laid down in AIR 2001 SC 1444 , Prahlad Singh Bhati V. N.C.T. Delhi and Anr. Almas Ara - petitioner No.1 herein on being a woman while interpreting the word ‘may’ is to be used as ‘must’ or ‘shall’ needs to be also turned down in the light of the authoritative principle laid down in AIR 2001 SC 1444 , Prahlad Singh Bhati V. N.C.T. Delhi and Anr. Their lordships’ in the said judgment have enunciated that the condition of not releasing the person on bail charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall not be applicable if such person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, subject to such conditions as may be imposed. It does, not, however, mean that persons specified in the proviso to Section 497 Cr.PC should necessarily be released on bail. 34. Similarly the contention raised about the ailment of any of the accused and so for his entitlement to bail would not be sufficient to accede to the prayer as the sickness in terms of proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C. is such which cannot be properly attended in the jail. Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2002 SC 2224 , Pawan V. Ram Prakash Pande and Anr. may be relied on, wherein it has been observed that the ailment from which the accused suffered was not of such nature as requiring released on bail. In this regard their lordships’ have enunciated that:— “...So far as the ailment of respondent No.2 is concerned, it is not of such nature as to require him to be released on bail. Respondent No.2 can always apply to the Jail authorities to see that he gets the required treatment....” 35. On overall view of the matter, no merit is found in the present petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are left free to approach the trial court or this Court, if there is change of circumstances on any other development, necessitating a fresh look to be made in the matter.