Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This is an application under Sec. 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), at the instance of the informant, for setting aside the order dated 12-1-94, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 102/93 (GR No. 1384 of 1993) State V/s. Manoj Kumar Singh, whereby bail was granted to Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 herein. In other words, it is a case for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, who are accused-persons in the aforesaid police case, wherein allegations have been levelled against them along with others under Secs. 498-A, 304-B and 201/34, I.P.C. 2. According to the allegations in the FIR lodged by the petitioner herein, who is uncle of the deceased girl, the latter was married to opposite party No. 1 herein (Manoj Kumar Singh) about eight years ago. She was not allowed peace in her sasural, and there was persistent demand for dowry. This resulted in a very unhappy relationship between the couple for which she often used to go to her naihar to avoid the atrocities being committed against her in her sasural. According to the further allegations, on 25-9-93, the girl was administered poison by the accused-persons and the dead body was taken away in a blue Jeep to unknown destination. Further prosecution case is that Ashok Kumar and Santosh Kumar Mishra, who are full brothers of the deceased, though minor, had gone over to their sisters sasural to find out her welfare and had personally seen the dead body of their sister which was taken away in a blue Jeep to unknown destination. They wanted to accompany in the Jeep but they were prevented from doing so by the accused-persons. On these allegations, Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 102/93 was registered under Secs. 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 34, I.P.C. A copy of the FIR is marked Annexure-1 to this petition. In the meantime, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 herein, as well as the mother of opposite party No. 1, had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the same and directed the accused-persons to surrender in the Court of learned C.J.M. to consider their bail application sympathetically. Consequently. Opposite party Nos. In the meantime, opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 herein, as well as the mother of opposite party No. 1, had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the same and directed the accused-persons to surrender in the Court of learned C.J.M. to consider their bail application sympathetically. Consequently. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 herein as well mother of O.P. No. 1 surrendered in the Court of learned C.J.M., Samastipur, who passed the impugned order whereby bail was granted to them. Hence the present application for cancellation of bail of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3. The informant has chosen not to take steps for cancellation of bail of the mother of O.P. No. 1. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the offence alleged in the FIR are punishable with imprisonment for life and, therefore, the C.J.M. did not have the jurisdiction to consider the bail application in view of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 437 (1) (i) of the Code. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1975 BBCJ 47 . Counsel next submitted that the impugned order is a case of misdirection, in as much as he has granted bail primarily on the consideration that the learned Sessions Judge had in his order observed that the C.J.M. should consider the bail application of the accused-persons sympathetically, rather than on merits. He relies on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1986 PLJR 548 Sagir Ahmad V/s. State of Bihar, wherein this Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused-persons therein on comparable ground. Learned Counsel next submitted that the persons who made statements before the police which are to be found in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the case diary, consistently supported the prosecution case. 4. Learned Counsel for O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that it could be incorrect to say that the learned C.J.M. granted bail solely on sympathetic grounds. In his submission, it is manifest from a plain reading of the impugned order, particularly paragraph 3 therein, that he has taken note of a large of materials including documentary evidence which had been placed before the learned Sessions Judge as well as the C.J.M.. In his submission, it is manifest from a plain reading of the impugned order, particularly paragraph 3 therein, that he has taken note of a large of materials including documentary evidence which had been placed before the learned Sessions Judge as well as the C.J.M.. This Court, therefore, should not interfere with the impugned order. Counsel next submitted that the impugned order was passed on 12-1-94, and a long time since then has elapsed which itself disentitles the petitioner to cancellation of bail. He lastly submitted that provision of Sec. 437 (1) (i) will be attracted only if the C.J.M. comes to the conclusion that the offences which are punishable to death, and that there appears reasonable ground for believing that the accused-persons have been guilty of offences punishable with death or imprisonment of life. In his submission, in the facts and circumstances for the case, such a conclusion is not possible for various reasons, inter alia, that and the case of poisoning as set out in the FIR is not supported by the post-mortem report. Therefore, the learned C.J.M. has had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He further submits that learned C.J.M. dealt with the matter after all on the direction of the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Mr. Ram Krishna Prasad, learned A.P.P., submitted that the persons who made statements before the police, as obtaining in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the case dairy that the girl was administered poison which has resulted in her death. But, the same does not seem to be supported by the medical evidence. In his submission, therefore, the allegation of poisoning as set out in the FIR appears to be mere conjecture and is a result of ill-treatment by her sasural people. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I must confess that the issue raised by the parties is not free from difficulties. I am personally unhappy with the mode and manner in which the learned C.J.M. has passed the impugned order. He ought to have considered the merits of the case, he has rather passed the order on sympathetic consideration. Surely, therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that it is a case of misdirection, and has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment in the case of Sagir Ahmad (supra). But, the matter does not rest there. Learned Counsel for O.P. Nos. Surely, therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that it is a case of misdirection, and has rightly placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment in the case of Sagir Ahmad (supra). But, the matter does not rest there. Learned Counsel for O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 is right in his submission that the impugned order was passed way back in the year 1994. It may, therefore, not be wise to exercise discretion to set aside the same because of the lapse of time. The further reason which dissuades me from setting aside the impugned order is that there is no material on the record to indicate the present stage of the trial. In case the impugned order is set aside, it may prove to be a futile and infructuous order in eased the trial is over by now. In such circumstances, I am constrained with some amount of pain to reject this application. 7. In the result, this application is dismissed. This being a fairly old matter, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, if not already concluded.