ORAL ORDER Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 by an order dated 21.12.2009 passed in B.P. No. 386 of 2009 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia( District Bhagalpur). 3. It appears that the petitioner lodged Ismailpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2009 dated 17.10.2009 for offences under Sections 341,323,365, 386, and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Opposite party no.2 is an accused in the aforesaid criminal prosecution and certain allegations have been levelled against him in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 lodged by the petitioner. It further appears that during the course of investigation, opposite party no.2 was apprehended by the police and was remanded to judicial custody. His prayer for bail was rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate, whereafter he preferred the aforesaid B.P. No. 386 of 2009 before the learned Sessions court, which was finally heard and decided by the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 granting bail to opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which bail has been granted to opposite party no.2 by learned Sessions court is arbitrary, and further merit of the case has not been properly considered, therefore, according to him, bail granted to opposite party no.2 is fit to be cancelled by this Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.( AIR 2010 SC 802 ). It is further contended that when opposite party no. 2 filed the aforesaid bail application, then by an order dated 10.12.2009, case diary and supervision note were called for, and only after two adjournments on 14.12.2009 and 18.12.2009 the matter was finally heard on 21.12.2009 and by that order prayer for bail made on behalf of opposite party no.2 was allowed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted in haste in granting bail to opposite party no.2 and, therefore, also it is liable to be cancelled by this Court. 5. Learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 have supported the impugned order and have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 have supported the impugned order and have opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2009, case diary and supervision note were received in the court and were subsequently received by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 16.12.2009 for perusal, whereafter the matter was finally heard and decided by an order dated 21.12.2009. It is contended by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that bail was granted to opposite party no.2 as far back as on 21.12.2009 and more than two and half years have elapsed since then, but there is no allegation of either misuse of privilege of bail or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also contended that there is no cogent and overwhelming circumstances, which may necessitate cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2. In support of his contention he has placed his reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirath Singh Vs. The State of Gujarat (1984 BBCJ 4(SC). 6. It appears that a Bench of this Court by an order dated 10.2.2012 directed the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur to conduct an enquiry into the matter as to whether the case diary was validly/ officially received by the court, while hearing the matter on 21.12.2009. It also appears that the enquiry report of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur was not received by this Court within the time fixed. Therefore, by an order dated 5.4.2012, the learned District and sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, was directed to furnish an explanation as to why the previous order dated 10.2.2012 was not complied with within the timeframe. In compliance of the order dated 10.2.2012 read with the order dated 5.4.2012, learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur has submitted his explanation as also the enquiry report, kept at Flag ‘A’ of the record. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur has explained that as a matter of fact, order dated 10.2.2012 and subsequent order dated 28.2.2012 passed by this Court were not communicated and received by him within the time prescribed and, therefore, enquiry could not be conducted. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur has explained that as a matter of fact, order dated 10.2.2012 and subsequent order dated 28.2.2012 passed by this Court were not communicated and received by him within the time prescribed and, therefore, enquiry could not be conducted. According to him, the moment he received the order dated 5.4.2012, he conducted an enquiry and examined the records of Bail Petition No. 386 of 2009, which was filed by opposite party no.2 for the purpose of grant of bail to him in the aforesaid criminal prosecution. Learned District and Sessions Judge has expressed his regret for inconvenience caused to this Court for non-submission of his enquiry report within the time fixed due to communication gap. 7. For the reasons disclosed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, the explanation submitted by him (kept at Flag ‘A’) is hereby accepted. 8. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, has also submitted the enquiry report, wherein he has come to a finding that the case diary was officially received on 16.12.2009 and it was handed over to learned Additional Public Prosecutor for his examination, so that bail petition was finally heard and disposed of. The learned District and Sessions Judge has come to a finding that though there was carelessness or laches on the part of Bench clerk/office clerk in drawing routine order regarding bail petition as also in the order sheet of other cases, because of lack of proper training to the Bench Clerk/office clerk, but as a matter of fact, the case diary was received in the court and thereafter the bail petition was finally disposed of by the impugned order dated 21.12.2009. 9. After having heard the parties at length and on perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the manner in which bail was granted to opposite party no.2. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-consideration of full merit of the case is concerned, this Court is of the view that re-appreciation of evidence for the purpose of cancellation of bail should normally be avoided. However, in some exceptional circumstances, bail can be cancelled, when on purely irrelevant considerations bail is granted to an accused. However, in some exceptional circumstances, bail can be cancelled, when on purely irrelevant considerations bail is granted to an accused. Law in this regard has been well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra K. Amin Vs. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2008 SC(Supp.) 1939) as also in the case of Ram Babu Tiwary Vs. State of M.P.( AIR 2009 SC(Supp.) 1664). Materials available on record do not necessitate the re-appreciation of evidence in the present case. I am conscious of the fact that parameters applied either for grant or rejection of bail are different and the same can not be applied for the purpose of cancellation of bail of an accused. It is well established that grant or rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsher step and stands on different footing, since it involves curtailment of liberty of an individual. Once an accused is granted bail during the pendency of enquiry or trial, unless and until there is specific allegation of misuse of privilege of bail or tampering of prosecution evidence or similar such allegation, bail should not be normally cancelled. Reference can be made for the above propositions of law to the celebrated judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1993 SC-I) and Dinesh M.N.(S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2008 SC 2318). 10. In the present case, admittedly bail was granted to opposite party no.2 on 21.12.2009 and he has enjoyed the privilege of bail for more than two and half years. The petitioner has not at all alleged misuse of privilege of bail or tampering with the prosecution evidence by opposite party no.2. This Court does not find that the learned Sessions court has acted in a haste manner for grant of bail to opposite party no.2. Admittedly, the case diary called for on 10.12.2009, as per the enquiry report of the learned District and sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, was received on 16.12.2009 and finally bail petition was heard and decided on 21.12.2009. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia, acted in a haste manner for granting bail to opposite party no.2 does not seem to be correct. The facts appearing in the case of Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia, acted in a haste manner for granting bail to opposite party no.2 does not seem to be correct. The facts appearing in the case of Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) were entirely different from the facts appearing in the present case. Hence reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the case of Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (Supra) is misconceived. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any cogent and valid reason for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.