Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD, J
Raju Ravidas @ Ravi Das S/o Surendra Das – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
SANJAY PRASAD, J.
I.A. No. 7737 of 2024
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 08.08.2022 passed by Sri Shyam Nandan Tiwari, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2017 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2017 passed by Sri Neeraj Kumar, learned Railway Magistrate, Madhupur in G.O.C.R. Case No. 32/2012 (T.R 148/2017) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (in short R.P.U.P. Act) and had been sentenced to undergo R.I for two years with fine of Rs.3,000/-.
2. The Interlocutory Application No. 7737 of 2024 has been filed Under Section 389 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the petitioner, during pendency of the present Criminal Revision Application.
3. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counse
The court granted bail to the petitioner under specific conditions, emphasizing the need to prevent future offenses while acknowledging the petitioner's custody status.
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.
Accused must prove lawful possession of railway property to avoid conviction under the Railway Property Act.
The court upheld the conviction for unlawful possession of railway property, affirming the admissibility of confessions and modifying the sentence to that already served due to prolonged litigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in choosing between imprisonment and fine under Section 3(a) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, considering the value of the seized goo....
Public servants are held to higher standards of trust; misappropriation of funds invokes strict legal consequences under Section 409 IPC, emphasizing accountability and integrity.
Once the government order specifically provides the applicant to be the resident of the same village where the shop has to be allotted, no such allotment can be made to an outsider.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
