1. ' This bail application has been presented on behalf of one Rafique, who is involved fn a Crime No, 91/88 of Police Station Kotdiji under section 302/147/148/149/144, P.P.C. As per F.I.R. Lodged on 30-6- 1988 at 11-45 a.m. At Police Station Kotdiji, the prosecution case is that in the year 1974 one Ghazi was murdered and in that connection the brother of the complainant Sain Dino and others were challenged. The complainant's brother Bahadur and others were acquitted about 8 years back.
2. Afterward there was a Razinama between the complainant side and the accused above-named, but the agreed compensation was not received by Rajab, son of the deceased Ghazi and others and they excused the murder of his brother. However, on the day of incident at 11-00 hours when the complainant and his brother Bahadur and Miandad and cousin Shahmir were going from Lanichhan Bus Stand to Liyari and had reached the place of occurrence they saw a tractor coming from opposite direction. The tractor was being driven by the applicant Rafique son of Gullan. There were 6 other persons named in the F.I.R. Sitting in the tractor, who were armed with guns and hatchets, as per details given in the F.I.R. Seeing the complainant and his cousin they got down from the tractor and Rajab gave them Hakal to the effect that he would take revenge of the murder of his father Ghazi and would murder Bahadur and others. At the instance of Rajab the murder of Bahadur was committed by persons armed with guns. Two of the accused persons named Wazir and Rajab were alleged to have caused hatchet blows to the deceased.
3. ' Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported 1978 SC M R7 and 1987 SCMR 1906, vehemently urged that the applicant cannot be said to have committed murder of deceased Bahadur. He was admittedly driving the tractor and was empty-handed and no injury was alleged to have been caused by him to the deceased abovenamed. He did not even give any Lalkara. There was, the counsel so urged, no pre- concert between the accused persons, as it was a sudden meeting as it is clearly decernible from the F.I.R. The applicant cannot, therefore, be said to have shared the common cause or shared the common intention of the other accused causing death of the deceased. The counsel also emphasises that the applicant did not have any motive to commit the offence.
4. ' Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, learned counsel for State, on the other hand, submitted that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the applicant was servant or was under influence of the other accused. He, however, candidly admitted that in view of the statement made in the F.I.R. It was a chance meeting and three was admittedly no pre-concert for the commission of the offence. He also did not dispute the correctness of the statement of the learned counsel that the applicant was empty-handed and that he was driving the tractor or that he had no prior knowledge of the offence of murder being committed by the other persons sitting on the tractor.
5. ' I have given due consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and I am of the opinion that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-cited decisions, is attracted to the facts of the instant case. The learned State counsel has also not opposed the grant of bail to the applicant. I would, therefore, admit the applicant to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.