[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Munni Chauhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1025 of 2025
Munni Chauhan
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Union of India
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Imtiyaz Khan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
For the UOI-Railway : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
------
04/ 15.12.2025 I.A. No. 14059 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the
delay of 39 days in preferring this petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in
preparation for filing the present petition, the said delay has occurred
and in view of that, the delay may kindly be condoned.
3. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned A.S.G.I. appearing
for the UOI-Railway have not raised any serious objection, if the delay
of 39 days is condoned.
4. In view of the above and considering the submissions of
respective parties and further in view of the averments made in the
aforementioned I.A., the delay of 39 days in filing the present petition
is condoned.
5. The aforesaid I.A. is allowed and disposed of
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, by the judgment
dated 02.03.2017 passed in connection with R.P. Case No. 46 of 2010
has been pleased to hold guilty and the petitioner has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- for having
committed the offence under Section 3(b) of Railway Property
(Unlawful Possession) Act and in default of payment of fine amount,
the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
months. He further submits that the said judgment of learned trial court
has been challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII,
Palamau at Daltonganj, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2017, whereby
the learned first appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the said
appeal by order dated 03.05.2025 by way of upholding the order of the
learned trial court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
for grant of regular bail / suspension of sentence, during the pendency
of this revision petition, I.A. No. 12559 of 2025 has been filed. He
submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than four
months and disclosure to that effect has been made in para-9 of the said
I.A. He next submits that the name of the petitioner has come on the
basis of confessional statement and even nothing incriminating articles
have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and further
the petitioner was also not put on Test Identification Parade. He further
submits that there is no likelihood of taking this revision petition
recently, as this petition is of the year 2025 only and in view of that this
petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of this
petition.
8. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned A.S.G.I.
appearing for the UOI-Railway jointly opposed the prayer and submits
that there are concurrent findings of two of the learned courts and in
view of that the prayer for bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
9. It appears that this petitioner has remained in custody for
more than four months and disclosure to that effect has been made in
para-9 of the I.A. and the name of the petitioner has come on the basis
of confessional statement and nothing incriminating articles have been
recovered from the possession of the petitioner and further the
petitioner was also not put on Test Identification Parade.
10. Reference may be made to the case of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde Gosai Versus State of
Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, in para-57, has
held as follows:-
"57. Thus, we hold that the delay in
taking up the main appeal or revision
coupled with the benefit conferred under
Section 436-A of the Code among other
factors ought to be considered for a
favourable release on bail."
11. In view of the above and in the attending facts and
circumstance of the case, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be
released on regular bail, during the pendency of this petition, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Railway Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, in connection with R.P. Case
No. 46 of 2010.
12. The aforementioned I.A. is allowed and disposed of.
13. In the meantime, call for the Trial Court Records.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-15.12.2025
Amitesh/-
