ABDUL KARIM KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances in which this application for bail is directly submitted to the High Court are that the petitioner who is a legal practitioner is a resident of Shajapur. In para 12 of his affidavit dated 13th June 1959, he has stated that he could not move the Additional District Magistrate Shajapur for bail because he has gone to a link Court in connection with official work. There is a link Court at Rajgarh. It is further alleged that the Sessions Judge was on leave, therefore the Additional Sessions Judge could not hear his application for bail because unless a case is transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge by the Sessions Judge, he does not hear cases.

(2.) The petitioner in this case is a lawyer who practises on me criminal side at Shajapur and in his application for bail, he has alleged that because he does Criminal cases, he has unfortunately incurred the displeasure of the Thanedar at Shajapur. The Thanedar who has filed an affidavit in reply has denied the existence of any unpleasant feelings. Without deciding the point whether any ill- feeling exists or not, I snail consider other facts which are of substance.

(3.) It is alleged by the petitioner that Narayan Balai r/o Vikla Khedi village eloped with one Mst. Ajudhya Bai. Thereupon her father lodged a report in which he named Narayan Balia as a perpetrator of the offence. It is said that Narayan accompanied by Ajudhya Bai came to the house of the petitioner on 21-6-1959 at 8 P.M. and Ajudhya Bai told the counsel (petitioner) that since her husband had deserted her for the last four years, she wanted a judicial separation. The counsel prepared a draft and asked the parties to come the following day to enable him to file the suit. It is admitted by the petitioner that he received Rs. 100/- as his professional fees. The couple did not turn up and he learnt on reliable authority that on account of some bitterness with the leaders of the Jan Sangh party, coupled with the displeasure of the police, a case is now being concocted against him under section 376 I.P.C. It is being alleged that, while the couple were at the petitioner's house seeking advice, the petitioner had carnal knowledge of Mst. Ajudhya Bai. It is also said that on 23-6-1959, the Secretary of Jan Sangh at Shajapur lodged a report that one Sattar had also raped Mst. Ajudha Bai. Munalal Naik, Thanedar of Shajapur in his affidavit has not denied any of these facts. He has only denied the existence of any unpleasantness between him and the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed this application and he submits that the police is out to harass him and subject him to all sorts of ignominies.