( 1 ) THE FIR unfolds that on a secret information that the co-accused, Deepak, who was wanted in a robbery case, would be proceeding to Zakir Nagar via Surya Hotel, with his associate, in a Tata Safari No. DL- 7cc-8792 at about 8. 00 p. m. . and that he would be in unlawful possession of arms, a raiding party was organised, which held its position in. a wait for the arrival of vehicle in question and on noticing the Tata Safari, being driven by the petitioner, the same was signaled by Constable Salesh, in uniform, to stop. The vehicle however, did not stop, rather it sped away Consequently there was a chase. The vehicle, being driven by the petitioner, was eventually overtaken near surya Hotel and made stop. The petitioner and his co-accused got out of the Tata Safari and started, running away. They were chased by HC Shyam Vir and Const. Vir Singh. In order to make good their escape, co-accused deepak fired at Const. Vir Singh from a country-made pistol. However, Const. Vir singh saved himself and continued with the chase and, succeeded in overpowering co-accused deepak. In the meantime, the petitioner allegedly started assaulting HC shyam Vir and Const. Vir Singh to secure release of his co-accused Deepak. However, other police officials managed to overpower him also. A 315 bore Country -make pistol containing an empty cartridge case was recovered form co-accused Deepak. He was also found in possession of a 315 bore live cartridge in right pocket of his pent. ( 2 ) PLEADING for bail, teamed counsel for the petitioner argues that looking at the content of the FIR, tiring at Const. Vir singh by Co-accused, deepak, could by no means be attributed to the present petitioner by invoking Section 34 IPC as in the circumstances in which co-accused Deepak, had allegedly fired at the said police official, he could not be said to have done so in furtherance of a common intention in that regard shared by the present petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could at best be held liable for prosecution under Section 186/353 ipc only. In support of his plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Supreme court decision in "malkhan Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh", AIR 1975 SC 12 . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could at best be held liable for prosecution under Section 186/353 ipc only. In support of his plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Supreme court decision in "malkhan Singh and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh", AIR 1975 SC 12 . ( 3 ) THE petitioner is said to be in jail for the last 35 days. ( 4 ) OPPOSING the petition, learned APR contends that the petitioner had, by restoring to assault on the person of the two police officials, in uniform, tried to secure release of his co-accused, Deepak, which clearly indicated that he and his co-accused, Deepak, shared a common intention to make good their escape by firing at the police officials chasing them with a view to scare them to abandon the chase. Learned APP points out that the petitioner was previously involved in several criminal cases though he stands acquitted in all such cases. ( 5 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the role allegedly played by the petitioner, he is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trail court. The petition stands disposed ef. DASTI as well.