Jharkhand High Court
Md. Chand vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party on 8 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.587 of 2023
....
Md. Chand ......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P
For the Union : Ms. Niki Sinha, CGC
......
Order No.06/08.05.2025
I.A. No.7034 of 2024
I.A. No.7034 of 2024 has not been pressed as the
petitioner has already been surrendered.
I.A. No.7034 of 2024 is rejected as not pressed for.
I.A. No.3130 of 2025
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgement of conviction
and sentence dated 29.03.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of
2018 by Sri Dheeraj Kumar, learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I,
Sahibganj thereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has
been dismissed with modification in the sentence by reducing R.I.
for two (02) years to R.I for one (01) year Under Section 3-a of
R.P.(UP) Act and thereby affirming the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 09.02.2018 passed by Sri Manoranjan
Kumar-III, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection
with R.P.S. Case No.03 of 2014 Trial No.14 of 2018, by which the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 3-a of
R.P(UP) Act and Section 174-C of Railway Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years and to pay the fine of Rs.5000/- and
sentenced to undergo R.I for one year respectively.
Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. I.A. No.3130 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
as well as learned counsel for the Railways.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned
Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of
law. It is submitted that this is case of recovery of four meters of
four pieces of iron wire, which has no mark of Railways. It is
submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for 26 days
during trial and he is in custody since 31.01.2025 and hence he
may be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of
bail.
6. Learned counsel for the Railways has also opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that there is one criminal antecedent
against the petitioner and there is a recovery of four meters' of four
pieces of iron wire from the possession of the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from
perusal of the records of this case, it appears that this is a case of
theft of Railway property.
8. It is submitted that the there was no railway mark on the
articles which were found from the petitioner.
9. It also appears that the petitioner is in custody for more
than four (04) months.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and
also considering the custody of the petitioner, the petitioner namely
Md. Chand is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each, to the satisfaction Sri Manoranjan Kumar-III,
Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj or his Successor Court in
connection with in connection with R.P.S. Case No.03 of 2014
Trial No.14 of 2018 subject to the condition that the one of the
bailor must be the own relative of the petitioner and the petitioner
is directed to file undertaking to not to indulge in such type of
activity failing which the prosecution will be at liberty to take step
for cancellation of bail.
11. I.A. No.3130 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Office of
Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
