' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bare perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that it was not a case of intentional murder; that the offence is of Qatl-iKhata and its sentence is five years R.I. Along with Diyat. Further submits that charge has been framed by Mr. Jaffar Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Satyana, on 11-9-2006 but he does not know whether any prosecution witness had been examined so far.
2. The learned counsel for complainant submits that petitioner remained proclaimed offender; that recovery has been effected from him; that petitioner is named in the F.I.R; that many other cases were registered against the petitioner and that Challan has been submitted before the Court.
3. The learned Dy. Prosecutor General submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R; that it is a case of intentional murder; that the complainant has made supplementary statement in this regard; that charge has been framed under section 302, P.P.C. And that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I had directed my Secretary to get information from the learned trial Court whether any witness has been examined and who is at fault in conclusion of the trial. He has received a detailed report, according to which, Challan was submitted on 31-8-2006, charge was framed on 11-9-2006 and till today the case has been adjourned for 38dates. Although many opportunities have been given but not a single witness has been examined so far, with a view to detain the petitioner behind the bars coupled with the fact that the instant case was lodged by real brother of the deceased, who is first cousin of the petitioner. It was not an intentional murder but Qatl-i-Khata or any negligence on the part of the petitioner, who is also injured in this case and remained in hospital for a long period. As far as earlier cases are concerned, those are of the minor offences including illicit arms. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated at bar, that in all those cases the petitioner has been acquitted. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the definition of section 318, P.P.C. At this stage I would like to reproduce section 319, P.P.C. Hereunder:-- ' Section 319 ,P.P.C.
"Punishment for Qatl-i-Khata----Whoever commits qatl-i-khata shall be liable to diyat: ' Provided that where qatl-i-khata is committed by any rash or negligent act, other than rash or negligent driving, the offender may, in addition to diyat, also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta'zir."
' Perusal of the above said section shows that maximum sentence of Qatali-Khata is five years' imprisonment along with Diyat. In fact it was negligence on the part of the petitioner, who himself sustained, injuries. The case of the ,petitioner falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.