IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46557 of 2009 Md.Alamgir S/O Md. Nasiruddin Biswas resident of Village Basantpur, Kala Deyara P.S. Amidabad Dist. Katihar Complainant- petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.P.N.Singh @ Purendra Nath Singh, Officer-in Charge Amdabad P.S. Amdabad Parment address P.N.Singh @ Purendra Nath Singhs/o Late Ram Kishore Singh resident of Village Bhadayan P.S. Muffasil (Ara) Dist. Bhojpur (Arrah) Accused- Opposite Parties --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Md Ataur Rahman, Advocate For the State: Mr R.B.Roy, Raman, A.P.P. --------- 03/ 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 P.N.Singh @ Purendra Nath Singh vide order dated 12.02.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No.1573 of 2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid bail was granted on the basis of two averments, namely, (i) that the accused had seized boat occupied by the complainant on 04.01.2001 on the basis of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj dated 16.10.2000 (Annexure 2) and hence his seizure was legal and justified and (ii) that on 30.03.2001 when the boat was released by the authority to the complainant, no objection was raised by the complainant that engine of boat was without nozzel and element sets. 4. He further submits that vide report dated 02.02.2001 Enquiry Officer had stated that it appears that seizure was not made on the order of the competent authority. He further states that the - 2 - complaint was already filed on 11.01.2001 and hence there was no occasion for the complainant to raise any objection on 30.03.2001 when the boat was released. 5. From the materials on record, it is quite apparent that accused had annexed order of the authority concerned as annexure 2 to his bail petition and on that basis order was passed on the bail petition. Whether the said order is legal and proper and whether it is passed by the competent authority has to be seen at the time of the trial of the case and at this stage merely on some observations of an Enquiry Officer nothing can be legally presumed against the accused. 6. So far the other question is concerned, the matter is just contrary to what has been stated by the petitioner because when the complaint had been filed on 11.01.2001 it was so much expected from the complainant to raise objection on 30.03.2001 when boat was released to him if some parts were missing from the boat. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the petitioner’s claim nor does it find any justification to cancel the bail granted to the accused P.N.Singh @ Purendra Nath Singh or to recall order dated 12.02.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 1573 of 2007. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has started but delay is being caused due to non-cooperative attitude of the accused persons. In the said circumstances, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously without giving any undue adjournment and if any of the parties fails to comply - 3 - the direction of the court, coercive step may also be taken in accordance with law. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)