IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2517 of 2010 1. Ram Shreshth Rai, son of Singheshwar Rai 2. Ram Surat Rai, son of Singheshwar Rai Both are resident of Village- Bhatauliya P.S.-Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur. 3. Umesh Shahi @ Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Narmadeshwar Shahi. 4. Prahlad Shahi @ Prahalad Prasad Singh, son of Narmadeshwar Shahi, Both are resident of Village- Sanda Damber, P.S. Motipur District- Muzaffarpur. ………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bhola Rai, son of Ram Dayal Rai, resident of Village- Sanda Dambar, P.S. Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur. ……Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 23. 03. 2010. Heard Mr. Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, besides some other minor offences as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even according to the complaint petition, there is no specific allegation of arson against these petitioners and they are also not alleged to have used fire firms. They have been simply named in the complaint petition as members of the mob. He has further invited attention of this Court towards order as contained in Annexure-3 passed by a Bench of this Court whereby other co-accused persons with specific allegation have been extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 2 Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that this is an old case of 1996 and petitioners avoided the process of the court. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners, namely, Ram Shreshth Rai, Ram Surat Rai, Umesh Shahi @ Umesh Prasad Singh and Prahlad Shahi @ Prahalad Prasad Singh, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M. (West) Muzaffarpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 262 of 1996, subject to the conditions under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions (a) that one of the bailors must be Govt. Servant or close family member of the petitioners, who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioners and (c) the petitioners shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing themselves in person or through representation by their lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioners fail to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners. Learned trial court is further directed to make 3 endeavor to conclude the trial of the petitioners within a period of six months from today. Non-cooperation of the petitioners in early conclusion of the trial may be construed as misuse of privilege of bail and that may entail cancellation of the bail of the petitioners. m.p. (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)