1. ORDER thMay 1980 at 3 a.m. In the house of complainant in village Piaro Khoso. It is further alleged that Khawand Bux was farmed with hatchet and he caused one hatchet blow with sharp side on the face of Allah Bachayo who was sleeping on the cot. Muhabat Khan applicant was also armed with hatchet and Allah Jurio applicant had a torch. It is not the case of the prosecution that Muhabat Khan and Allah Jurio applicants participated in the assault but they were merely standing there and went away with the main accused, i.e. Khawand Bux. There are two eye- witnesses, namely complainant Mohammad Ramzan and Shah Bux and two other witnesses, namely Abdul Ghafoor and Mohammad Yousuf who are stated to have seen and identified the accused persons in the moonlight running away after the incident. Khawand Bux was arrested on the following day of the incident and blood-stained hatchet and clothes from him have been secured by the police. These articles have been sent to the Chemical Examiner and the report is not on the record. The motive as stated in F. I. R. Is that one Mst. Sakina was going to be married with deceased Allah Bachayo and the accused persons were against this marriage.
2. Bail plea is urged on behalf of applicants Muhabat Khan and Allah Jurio on the ground that they have not actually participated in the crime and they have not caused injury to the deceased, although it is alleged by the prosecution that Muhabat Khan was armed with hatchet. It is stated that Allah Jurio had a torch. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicants that there was only one injury on the person of Allah Bachayo which proved fatal and that is specifically ascribed to accused Khawand Bux for whom no bail plea is made. It is submitted by the learned counsel that so far as the case against the present appli--cants is concerned, it relates to their complicity in the crime under section 34, P. P. C. Which is going to be determined by the trial Court after evidence is adduced before, the Court and evaluated and till then the applicants are entitled to bail in support of this contention the learned counsel has cited before me PLD 1976 Kar. 1202 in which it is held that responsibility of applicant for sharing common intention with main accused of murdering deceased is to be established in the trial Court and till such decision is given on the basis of evidence which is yet to be recorded such accused is entitled to bail and bail was granted on this ground. In addition to this 1979 P Cr. L J 45, NLR 1978 Criminal (SC) 688 and PLD 1979 (?) 94 have been cited which support the proposition of law as stated above. In these circumstances I admit the applicant to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety and P. R. Each in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.