Jharkhand High Court
Timal Jaiswal @ Amit Jaiswal @ Timbal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1230 of 2024
....
Timal Jaiswal @ Amit Jaiswal @ Timbal Jayaswal, aged about 48
years son of Ram Patal Jaiswal @ Rampalat Jaiswal, resident of
Raju Bagan, Harharguttu, PO- Harharguttu, PS- Bagbera, Town
Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Union of India ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, APP
For the UOI : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
......
08/13.02.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 1230 of 2024 has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment
dated 13.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2022 by
Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
IV, Jamshedpur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,
Jamshedpur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2022
and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 28.07.2022 passed by Sri Amikar Parwar, Railway Judicial
Magistrate, Porahat, Chaibasa in connection with C/7 Case
Number 929 of 2005 corresponding to T. R. No. 13 of 2021 by
which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under
Section 3(a) of R. P. (U.P.) Act and sentenced to undergo S. I. for
a period of two (2) years and to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the
offence under Section 3(a) of R. P. (U.P.) Act.
2. I.A. (Cr.) No. 13095 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of this Criminal
Revision Application.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned judgments and sentence passed by the learned
Court below are illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the
eyes of law. It is submitted that the allegation of recovery of
Railway material from the possession of the petitioner is false
and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioner was not arrested
from the spot. It is submitted that recovery has been made from
the possession of co-convict Pramod Kumar Mishra and
Dharmendra Kumar Singh. It is submitted that the name of the
petitioner has come in this case on the basis of disclosure made
by the co-convict-Pramod Kumar Mishra and Shiv Charan
Mahato and place of occurrence belongs to Dharmendra Kumar
Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
28.11.2024 and the petitioner was also in custody for around two
months during trial and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged
on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is one of the main accused
and the recovery of railway property belongs to him, which is
evident from the statement of co-convict Pramod Kumar Mishra,
who is Truck Owner in question. It is submitted that the place
from where recovery was made belongs to Dharmendra Kumar
Singh, who have given the said area on lease to the petitioner. It
is submitted that the petitioner has got five criminal antecedents
and as such, prayer for bail may be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the Union of India has opposed the
prayer for bail.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
going through the Lower Court Records, it appears that the
Railway Official had intercepted one Truck and on disclosure of
Truck Driver-Shiv Charan Mahato and Owner of the Truck
Pramod Kumar Mishra, the name of the petitioner has come in
this case.
8. It appears that the petitioner was in custody for around
two months i.e. from 23.01.2006 to 22.03.2006 during the trial
and the petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2024 i.e. for around
two and half months.
9. It appears from the report that the petitioner has got five
(5) criminal antecedents and in which he has been acquitted in
one of the cases, but he has been convicted in two other cases.
10. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and considering the custody of the petitioner, during
pendency of this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner
namely Timal Jaiswal @ Amit Jaiswal @ Timbal Jayaswal is
directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Amikar Parwar, Railway
Judicial Magistrate, Porahat, Chaibasa/or his Successor Court in
connection with C/7 Case Number 929 of 2005 corresponding to
T. R. No. 13 of 2021 subject to the condition that one of bailor
must be own relative of the petitioner and the petitioner shall
also file an Undertaking before the learned Court below that he
will not get indulged in such type of crime in future again,
otherwise prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation his bail and the petitioner must careful in future.
11. Thus, I.A. (Cr.) No. 13095 of 2024 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of
Police, Chaibasa and Railway Protection Force (i.e. RPF),
Chaibasa for the needful.
13. Admit.
14. Lower Court Records have already been received.
15. Put up this case under the heading "For Hearing" in the
year 2026 as per seriatim.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
