The court finds that considerations of custody duration and criminal history are pivotal in granting bail under the R.P. (U.P.) Act, balancing rights of the accused against law enforcement needs.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

I.A. (Cr.) No. 13095 of 2024

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 bySri Anand Mani Tripathi, the learned Additional Sessions JudgeIV, 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 isevident 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 ofTruck 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 fa