BHOLA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is being filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel of petitioners and opposite party No. 2. Petitioners have filed this application for cancellation of the bail granted to opposite party No. 2 on 22.7.2002 by Additional Sessions Judge I, Patna. The case of petitioners is that opposite party No. 2 being a builder sold flats to petitioners but material used in the construction of flats were substandard materials and builder has constructed a fourth floor without the permission of Patna Regional Development Authority and he has cheated the petitioners and has committed criminal breach of trust.

(3.) The impugned order which has been challenged here shows that opposite party No. 2 was granted provisional bail on a condition that after his release on bail, he will complete the works as agreed between the parties and which had been left incomplete in three phases and each phase shall consist of one month and entire unfinished work as per agreement had to be completed by opposite party No. 2 failing which he would loose his right of continuing on bail. The order further shows that when the work was not done, provisional bail was cancelled on 7.6.2002 and opposite party No. 2 was directed to surrender before the Court below and, thereafter, he surrendered on 13.6.2002 and when he again moved for bail, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed with the consent of parties and after considering the report of Pleader Commissioner, the petitioner was granted bail by impugned order with a direction that the unfinished work mentioned in the report of Pleader Commissioner shall be completed by him within three months from the date of his release from custody and he was further directed to submit a completion report before the Court below. It was further observed that if the work was not completed due to laches or negligence of opposite party No. 2, the informant will be at liberty to take necessary legal action against opposite party No. 2 including cancellation of bail. It has been submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that after his release on bail, the work mentioned in Pleader Commissioner's report was completed and opposite party No. 2 submitted compliance report before the Court below on 7.10.2002 in which he made a prayer for appointing a Pleader Commissioner again for making local inspection (Annexure-B of counter affidavit). The learned counsel of opposite party No. 2 has submitted that because petitioners have not paid the entire money of flats which they purchased, therefore, numbering of parking space has not been made. It is further submitted that as per direction in the impugned order that if the work was not completed within three months, the petitioners were at liberty to take legal action against opposite party No. 2 including cancellation of bail, the petitioners filed a petition before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur for cancellation of bail of opposite party No. 2 on 9.9.2004 (Annexure-A of supplementary affidavit) and their prayer was dismissed but this fact has been concealed by petitioners. Leader counsel of opposite party No. 2 submits that this petition is not maintainable because prayer of petitioners for cancelling bail of opposite party No. 2 was lastly rejected by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur against which petitioners have not preferred any appeal.