Judgment ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of two Bail Applications No. 1870/96 and 1871/96. Bail Application No. I 870/96 is filed on behalf of Ram Kishore, Panna Ram, Ramji Ram and Sohan Lal while Bail Application No. 1871/96 is filed on behalf of Ram Narayan, Kistoor Ram and Chanda Ram. ( 2 ) THE facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on 14-10-1995 at about 11 P. M. Mangi Lal informed Shri Krishna, SHO, Police Station, Gotan that 3-4 persons attacked on him while he was in his house. He had caught hold of them and therefore, he requested for an action. Shri Krishna, SHO, Mohammed Anwar Alam, Head Constable Ridhkaran, Ramchandra, Dharma Ram, Jugal Kishore and Driver Om Prakash went to Kaswa Kidhani. As soon as they reached near the turn of the dhani 60-70 persons surrounded the Jeep. They were armed with lathis, ballams (spears), sword, kassia and guns. They attacked on the Police persons. The Jeep was damaged and with a common object to kill the Police personnel, beating was started. The matter was reported by the SHO himself who has identified certain persons. FIR mentions that Chanda Ram had kassi Ram Narayan had a 12 bore gun and Chanda Ram inflicted a kassi blow on his head while Ramji Ram inflicted a lathi blow on his hand. Head Constable Mohd. Anwar Alam was injured by a pointed weapon with the result Anwar Alam fell down. Anwar Alam succumbed to his injury. Other Police officials Ramchandra, Ridhkaran, Jugal Kishore also received injuries: A case under Sec. 147, 448, 353, 332, 307, 302/149, IPC was registered and investigated. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants should be granted bail as the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Court. He submitted that the applicants have been rounded up with the aid of Sec. 149, IPC for the offence under Sec. 302, IPC and other offences. He also contended that there is no evidence that there was any common object of forming an un-lawful assembly to kill any Police official. He has cited Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 Raj LW 656, and has drawn my attention to the ingredients of Sec. 149, IPC. He also contended that there is no evidence that there was any common object of forming an un-lawful assembly to kill any Police official. He has cited Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 Raj LW 656, and has drawn my attention to the ingredients of Sec. 149, IPC. In this citation; it has been held that for the application of second portion of Section 149, IPC it must be proved that the person who is sought to be made liable knew that the offence which has actually been committed or likely to be committed was in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. ( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that the accused persons belong to different villages and the persons who have been granted bail were not the assailants. It has also been contended that it was Chuna Ram who inflicted a ballam (spear) blow on Anwar Alam with the result Anwar Alam died. It has further been contended that accused Ram Narayan was having a 12 bore gun and there could have been no other intention or object by taking it to the place of occurrence except to commit the offence of murder in the circumstances. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival contentions. From the evidence on record I find that the applicants were the assailants. It has also come in evidence that Chuna Ram was having a ballam (spear) and inflicted its blow on Anwar Alam which caused injury to his chest. Anwar Alam fell down. Chuna Ram attacked on Ridhkaran and Ridhkaran also fell down. Anwar Alam died due to this injury on his chest. In the facts and circumstances when the applicants are said to be assailants and they were identified in that assembly of 50-60 persons, I am of the view that there could be no other object of the assembly except to attack and kill the Police officials because the assembly was under the impression that the Police officials were helping the other party without expressing opinion on merits. I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-applicants. Both the bail applications are rejected. Order accordingly. .