IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1138 of 2025

1.Kinkari Pandey

2.Pappu Pandey @ Pappu Kumar Pandey .... Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Union of India …… ….. .... Opp. Party

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. N.P.Thakur, Advocate

For the State :- Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate

For the Railways :- Mr. Prashant Pallava, Advocate

----

5/16.12.2025 I.A. No.15567 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 13

days.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in preparation of filing of the revision petition this delay has occurred and in view of that the

delay may kindly be condoned.

3. Learned counsel for the Railways has got no objection if the delay is

condoned.

4. In view of above such delay in filing the instant revision petition is

hereby condoned and the instant petition is allowed and disposed of.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 25.6.2025 passed in Cr.Appeal No.130 of 2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge XVI, Dhanbad, whereby he has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Railway, Dhanbad, passed by order dated 29.09.2022, in connection with R.P.Case No.94 of 2009/ T.R. No.531 of 2022 (arising out of Gomoh R.P.F Post Case No.21 of 09) whereby the learned court has found the petitioners guilty and convicted the petitioners for offence under sections 3(a) of Railways Property Unlawful Possession Act and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay find of Rs.6000/- and in default to pay fine, further directed to undergo RI for six months and it was further directed that the period already undergone in custody will be set off.

6. I.A. No.15566 of 2025 has been filed for bail to the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have already remained in custody for five months 25 days and as the petitioners have surrendered before learned court on 11.11.2025 and prior to that the petitioners have remained in custody for four months and 25 days. He further submits that name of the petitioners have come on confessional statement and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and four persons have been acquitted in appeal.

8. Leaned counsel for the State as well as the Railways submit that there are concurrent findings of two learned court and even half of the sentence has not been completed and in view of that, the petitioners may not be granted bail.

9. Considering that the sentence is of two years and the petitioners have remained in custody for four months and 25 days and this revision petition is of the year 2025 and there is no likelihood of this criminal revision petition of being taken recently and further considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Bhagwan Ram Shinde v. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421 and further in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein at paragraph no57, it has been held as under.

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 Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail

10. In view of above I am inclined to grant bail to both the petitioners. Accordingly, both the petitioners above named are hereby directed to be released on bail, during pendency of this Criminal revision petition on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Dhanbad in connection with R.P.Case No.94 of 2009/ T.R. No.531 of 2022 (arising out of Gomoh R.P.F Post Case No.21 of 09) with further condition that one of the bailors must be a close relative of the