Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grant or otherwise of bail does not depend merely on the Section of P.P.C. Which has been incorporated by the S.H.O. In the F.I.R. But on the offence which appears to have been made out from the perusal of the record.
2. Adds that it is the complainant's own case that the wives of Dara petitioner and Shari deceased were quarrelling with each other and it was during the course of this quarrel between the two that the petitioner who was on the roof of his shop hurled a brick at the head of the deceased which proved fatal.
3. Relying upon the provisions of 4exception of section 300 of P.P.C., the learned counsel argues that the offence if at all any committed by the petitioner falls within the purview of the second part of section --which is punishable with a maximum of 10 years.
4. Supplemented his submissions by further contending that the petitioner had been in custody for more than 19 months and considering the offence being punishable under section 304, P.P.C., the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail.
5. Also argues that the nature of the crime committed and petitioner---s intentional involvement in the same is also demonstrated by the fact that the complainant never considered it necessary to even report the occurrence in question to the police for more than 24 hours.
6. I consider it inappropriate to make any comments on the submissions made by the learned counsel lest the same may prejudice the proceedings which have yet to follow. Suffice it, however, to say that I do feel that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail.
7. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail in case F.I.R. No.136/90, of Police Station Mustafa Abad of District Kasur subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two suretiesth