1. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that it is an admitted position, that there was a chance meeting between the deceased and the present applicant and as such question of common intention between the applicant and other co-accused to cause murder of the deceased, Prima facie does not arise. In addition to this the learned Advocate for the applicant admitted that according to post-mortem report one of the eight injuries was the cause of the death, but there is nothing on the record to show which of the accused-persons caused the said injuries and con--sequently the case against the present applicant would require further enquiry at the stage of trial. In support of these contentions the learned Advocate for the applicants has relied upon cases reported in NLR 1982 693, 1983 P Cr. L J 17 and 1982 P Cr. L J 383.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State on the other hand submitted, that the F. I. R. In question was lodged forthwith and the names of the present applicants and the past attributed to them have been clearly mentioned in the F. I. R. The learned State counsel has submitted that there were hatchet injuries on the body of the deceased and according to the prosecution witnesses as well as all the accused persons including present applicant caused multiple hatchet injuries on the body of the deceased except Sarwar who is alleged to have given a lathi blow. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that present applicant and other co- accused came together duly armed with hatchets, the common intention can be presumed from this fact.
3. In view of this the learned State counsel vehemently opposes the above application.
4. I have carefully considered the above submission made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the F. I. R. Of the incident and the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant.
5. It is clear from the version as given in the F. I. R., that there was/ chance meeting between the deceased and the applicant and other co-accused-persons, when the incident is alleged to have taken place and as such the question of applicability of the provisions of section 34, P. P. C. Would require further enquiry at the stage of trial, as the fatal injury is not attributed to any individual person including applicant, in the F. I. R.
6. In view of my above conclusion, I consider that the case against the present applicant, regarding applicability of the provision 34, P. P. C. Would require further enquiry at the stage of trial and, therefore, I allow the above application and, direct that applicant may be released on bail on his furnishing, surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with the P. R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. As according to challan, applicant was shown as absconding and, therefore I have fixed the bail amount taking into consideration of this fact.