IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21586 of 2010 BIJAY YADAV SON OF INDRA YADAV @ SUCHIT YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAUBATPUR LODIPUR, P.S. KHIZAR SARAI, DISTRICT GAYA --- PETITIONER. Versus STATE OF BIHAR—OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S. K. Yadav, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rameshchandra ( A.P.P. ----- 2/ 09-07-2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case instituted for offences under section 379, 405/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4/40 (1) of the Bihar Mineral Mining Concession Rule, 1972. It is submitted that according to F.I.R. there is general and omnibus allegation against 12 F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner that they are running their brick kiln illegally and they are also running movable brick kiln. From perusal of the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, it appears that allegations are general and omnibus and it has also not been pointed out that as to how much loss has been caused to the State because of illegal running of the aforesaid brick kiln. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, offences under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable and for offence under section 40 (1) of the Bihar Mineral Mining Concession Rule 1972 maximum sentence is six months 2 with fine. Be that as it may , taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Gaya in connection with Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010 , subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. and subject to further conditions that : (A) one of the bailors must be government servant or close family member of the petitioner who will file an affidavit in the court below showing his/her relationship with the petitioner, (B) if the petitioner is found involved in same and similar nature of cases in future, then in that case the informant/ prosecution shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, and if such a petition is filed, the court below would be obliged to dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned 3 and (C ) the petitioner shall make regular pairvi in the court below in the present case either by appearing himself in person or through representation by his lawyer on each and every dates, and if on two consecutive dates petitioner fail to make pairvi, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. BTiwary ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)