JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— The application before me is an application on the part of nine men, Mewatis, residents of Qasba Pilkhana. Four of these men, namely, Ismail Khan, Sorab Khan, Makbul Khan and Jagma Khan, were with several other men arrested by the Sub-Inspector in charge of the police station Pilkhana. The other five men were arrested by the same Sub-Inspector in the compound of the District Magistrate's Court at Aligarh. All these men have been required to execute a bond with two sureties to be of good be-baviour for one year. They appealed to the District Magistrate and their appeals were dismissed. It does not appear under what provisious of law the last named five men were arrested. They were not known to the officer arresting them before their arrest and, judging from the evidence given by that officer, they appear to have been arrested because they were Mewatis of Pilkhana. It is alleged that they had come to the Magistrate's Court that day with the intention or object of giving evidence on behalf of some off the Mewatis who had previously been arrested. If this was the case, I do not hesitate to say that the arrest was a most Improper one and quite uncalled for. In case of this kind the officer, who is best able to form an opinion regarding their reputation, is undoubtedly the Magistrate of the District and the officer in charge of the police station in which these men reside. At the same time the law requires that there should be evidence forthcoming before any man can be called upon to give security for good behaviour, and that evidence must establish one or more of the points set out in section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In each case the evidence upon the record needs to be “carefully considered and weighed. If, after such consideration there seem good grounds for the conclusion at which the Magistrate of the District arrived, I am not prepared to interfere with the order, simply because a defect here and there in the evidence can be pointed out. In the case before me I am not satisfied that the information upon which the Magistrate proceeded is evidence that justified the order. In the case before me I am not satisfied that the information upon which the Magistrate proceeded is evidence that justified the order. I have gone very carefully through the evidence with the assistance of the learned Counsel who appears for the applicants and also of the Assistant Government Advocate. Of all the witnesses who gave evidence, there were only two whose evidence appeared to me to be evidence of value. What their evidence points to is that at or near Pilkhana there is a gang or gangs of Mewatis, who are considered to be persons who occupy themselves with receiving stolen property and offences of a similar nature. There is further some evidence which points to the fact that the villagers in or about Pilkhana are in considerable terror of Mewatis, and the difficulty I find in accepting even that evidence, which appears good evidence in this case, is that these witnesses also, having that conviction before their minds that the Mewatis are responsible for crime, have mentioned certain Mewatis as men from whom security should be taken without any real tangible ground that the men against whom they give evidence are men who by habit are receivers of stolen property or by habit thieves, etc., or are so desperate or dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community. I do not know whether this evidence does not proceed merely upon the fact that these men are Mewatis residing in Pilkhana, and that the Mewdtis of Pilkhana in general are of dangerous character. Their evidence does not really press against each individual so much as against the whole gang. For these reasons, while I recognize the difficulty of cases of this nature, I consider that this is a case in which interference is called for. I set aside the order for security. If any of them are in jail they will be at once released, if any have given bonds, those bonds will be discharged.