JUDGMENT 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. In reply it was stated that in fact the investigation was over by that time as on 26.10.1991 all the goods said to have been taken away from the tenanted house were seized from the other house belonging to the petitioner himself. Thereafter, it was the result of pressure brought on the investigating agency through a question in the Vidhan Sabha which led to further investigation in the matter leading to the recovery of the truck in question. Shri Godha relied on Analldan Aravindakshan v. State (AIR 1955 NUC 538), In re Karuppayya ( AIR 1942 Mad. 227 ), and Public Prosecutor v. Chilikina Subbanna and others (AIR 1947 Mad. 239) to support his contention that it is a fit case for cancellation of the bail granted to non-applicants 1 to. 4. The principles governing cancellation of bail are given in the State Through Dulhi Adu v. Sunjay Gandhi ( AIR 1978 SC 961 ). 227 ), and Public Prosecutor v. Chilikina Subbanna and others (AIR 1947 Mad. 239) to support his contention that it is a fit case for cancellation of the bail granted to non-applicants 1 to. 4. The principles governing cancellation of bail are given in the State Through Dulhi Adu v. Sunjay Gandhi ( AIR 1978 SC 961 ). After giving my thoughtful consideration lo the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it a fit case for cancelling the bail granted to NAS 1 to 4 more so in view of the fact that the State is not supporting the petition. Prayer refused.