Mithilesh Kumar @ Vishwakarma and Others vs The State

Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the State.

The case is u/s 3 R.P. (U.P.) Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioner is said to have been apprehended with some articles as per the seizure list dated 20.2.2003 which articles are said to be properties of Indian Railways. The learned Counsel submits that the properties seized are not of much value. It is submitted that the Petitioners are in custody since 20.2.2003.

Besides the factor of recovery the learned Counsel also submits that the of fences under the R.P. (U.P.) Act are bail able and hence the Petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. In support of the| contention the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has cited a decision in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. State of Assam, wherein the High Court of Gauhati has held that the offences under the R.P. (U.P.) Act are to be treated as bailable. Considering the provision u/s 8(1) and (2) and proviso (1), when the person is arrested by any officer of the force for an offence punishable under this Act or is forwarded to him u/s 7, he shall proceed to inquire into the charge against such person and if the officer of the Force is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person. he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate. In view of this provision it mas held that when two options are available to the arresting officer one is to grant bail if arrested person is ready to give bail or to produce the arrested person, in custody before concerned Magistrate, the arresting Officer cannot adopt the option prejudicial to arrested person and it was further held that the offence has to be treated as bailable. I find myself in agreement with the finding of the Court of Gauhati.

The learned A.P.P. does not point out any objection so far the legal proposition about the offence being bailable is concerned.

In the circumstance Petitioners Mithilesh Kumar @ Vishwakarma and Upendra Vishwakarma alias Bangali are admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 7000/- (seven thousand) with two sureties of like amount each of the satisfaction of Sri A.K. Sharma, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Kiul at Lakhisarai, in connection with R.P.F. (Post) Kiul P.S. case No. 01/03.