JAWAHARLAL TRIPATHI Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was the tenant of father of non -applicant No.4. The allegation is that the landlord instead of resorting to the normal legal course for eviction engaged NAS 1 to 3 who alongwith others trespassed into tenanted premises and forcibly took away the entire belongings of the petitioner in a truck having locked the petitioner in the toilet. On these facts report was lodged in the police station and non -applicants 1 to 4 were prosecuted on charges under section 448, 382/34 IPC. Their petition for bail was rejected by the trial Magistrate. Second petition was rejected by XIth A.SJ. Bhopal. The third instead of being heard by the Judge who had rejected the previous petition, was heard and allowed vide impugned order, dated 1.11.1991, by IXth A.SJ. Bhopal. This is a petition for canceling the same on ground that the learned Judge failed to take into consideration the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner alleging inter alia that the prosecution witnesses were being overawed by the miscreants. The other ground for the petition is that the learned Public prosecutor had falsely conceded before the Court that the investigation was over to support his indefensible attitude in not opposing the petition.