JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - The list has been revised. None appears for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal of District Magistrate, Pithoragarh. 3. A complaint was filed before the District Magistrate complaining that in the night between 30.9.71 and 1.10.71 Kailash Chandra, son of the complainant had gone to see Ram Leela. He fell down on the ground on account of crowd. One Ashok was trying to pick him up. The respondent had arrested both of them. He had detained them till the next morning. He, however, released them on bail after a long delay even though several respectable persons had made request in this respect. Thus that was a wrongful detention The opposite party, who was a Sub-Inspector had filed a charge sheet against Kailash Chandra and Ashok under Section 160 I.P.C. The son of the complainant was acquitted of the charge on 22.1.74. Thereafter this complaint was filed. 4. The record of the lower court is not complete. The Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, reports that Exhibit file of the case is not traceable and cannot be reconstructed. 5. I have perused the file of the lower court. It contains only statements of the witnesses. The allegation of the complainant was that formerly the respondent was the friend of the complainant. He became inimical because in one case he had cross-examined the respondent severely. In another case, some exchange of hot words had taken place when he had gone to lodge report as Chairman of a Cooperative Society against an employee of the Society. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses before the Lower Court. The Lower Court had not believed the prosecution story and acquitted the respondent. The Lower Court came to the conclusion that there could be no chance of enmity. The Police Officers are daily cross-examined by the lawyers and no body takes ill of the questions put by the counsel for an accused. The second instance was also not believed to be sufficient cause for development of ill will between the parties. This reasoning of the District Magistrate was quite plausible. It was based on the circumstances of the case. 6. Besides the above, it is noteworthy that admittedly the two boys were arrested after Rain Leela was over. Out of them, one Kailash Chandra was admittedly injured. This reasoning of the District Magistrate was quite plausible. It was based on the circumstances of the case. 6. Besides the above, it is noteworthy that admittedly the two boys were arrested after Rain Leela was over. Out of them, one Kailash Chandra was admittedly injured. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, the respondent could have come to the conclusion that Kailash and Harish Chandra were fighting in the Ram Leela. It is another matter that after they were arrested they had come to terms and setting up a different story. 7. Admittedly two young persons were released on bail by the respondent at about 11.00 a.m. next day. Thus there was hardly a delay of about two hours. The respondent had given an explanation that he was consulting his seniors in the matter and then only he had granted bail. This explanation cannot be said to be devoid of force. The Station Officer acts in a quasi judicial manner while granting bail in non-cognizable matter. If some delay had been caused in releasing two persons on bail, then it cannot amount to a wrongful confinement as to come within the ambit of Section 342, I.P.C. 8. The respondent had challenged two appellants for the alleged crime committed between 30.9.71 and 1.10.71. Hence in these circumstances also the bona fide of the respondent cannot be doubted. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any error in the order of the lower court. The appeal is dismissed.