Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ravi Shankar KumarversusThe Union of India through the Director General (R.P.F.) Railway Board

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The contempt application is disposed of as no further order is required because the petitioner has already been released on bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Ravi Shankar Kumar, a railway employee, filed a contempt application alleging that senior security officials of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) refused to grant him the benefit under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby violating Supreme Court guidelines laid down in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* and *Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand*. The petitioner had been apprehended under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and subsequently released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur. The High Court examined whether the alleged non‑compliance warranted contempt proceedings. Since the petitioner was already released on bail and no further relief was necessary, the Court held that the contempt application could not proceed. Consequently, the contempt application was disposed of without any order against the respondents.

Issues considered

  • Whether the refusal to grant the benefit under Section 41A CrPC by the RPF officials amounts to contempt of court.
  • Whether the High Court can entertain a contempt proceeding when the petitioner has already been released on bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • contempt of court
  • Section 41A CrPC
  • Arrest guidelines
  • Railway Protection Force
  • bail
  • Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act
  • Supreme Court directives

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1782 of 2025
                 ======================================================
                 Ravi Shankar Kumar Son of Arjun Prasad, resident of House No. 63/73, near
                 Bhim Sen Akhara, Nawagarhi, P.O. Chand Chaura, District- Gaya at present
                 posted as Chief Office Superintendent, Mechanical Department, East Central
                 Rail Sonepur Division, Sonepur.

                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus

           1.    The Union of India through the Director General (R.P.F.) Railway Board
                 Raiseena Road, Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001 namely Shri Manoj Yadava
                 son of not known.
           2.    Mr. Amresh Kumar, the Director General - cum-Principal Chief Security
                 Commission, R.P.F., East Central Rail, Hajipur.
           3.    Sri S. Lius Amutan, Deputy Director General -cum-Chief Security
                 Commissioner (R.P.F.), East Central Rail, Hajipur.
           4.    Sri Amitabh Kumar, Senior Division Security Commissioner (R.P.F.)
                 Sonepur Mandal, Sonepur.
           5.    Sri Ajay Kumar, Assistant Security Commissioner (R.P.F.), Sonepur
                 Division, Sonepur.
           6.    Mr. Saket Kumar, Inspector, the S.H.O. of R.P.F. Post Hajipur, District-
                 Vaishali, the informant of the present case.
           7.    Sri Narsingh Yadav, the Investigating Officer-cum-the Deputy Inspector,
                 R.P.F. Post Hajipur, District - Vaishali.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 For the UOI            :        Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Dy. SGI
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
                         and
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

6   23-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                 2. Following is the relief sought for in the present

                   contempt application:-

                                                      “1. That this is an application for
                                            initiation of a contempt proceeding against the
Patna High Court MJC No.1782 of 2025(6) dt.23-04-2026
                                            2/3




                                  contemnors- Opposite Parties, specially Opposite
                                  Parties No. 6 to 8, specially the Opposite Party
                                  No.4, the Senior Division Security Commissioner,
                                  R.P.F., Sonepur, who has refused to grant the benefit
                                  under section 41A of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, and
                                  willfully, deliberately and intentionally violating the
                                  guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
                                  passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar judgment
                                  dated 02.07.2014 as well as judgment dated
                                  31.07.2023 passed in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of
                                  Jharkhand,      regarding    initiation   of   criminal
                                  proceeding against the petitioner being R.P.F. Post
                                  Hajipur Case No. 06/2024 dated 20.11.2024 u/s 3
                                  RP(UP) Act, violating the violating u/s 41A of
                                  Cr.P.C. by which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that;
                                                “(11.5) The decision not to arrest an
                                  accused, he forwarded to the Magistrate within two
                                  weeks from the date of the institution of the case
                                  with a copy to the Magistrate which may be
                                  extended by the Superintendent of Police of the
                                  district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
                                                (11.6) Notice of appearance in terms of
                                  Section 41A Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within
                                  two weeks from the date of institution of the case,
                                  which may be extended by the Superintendent of
                                  Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded
                                  in writing;
                                                (11.7) Failure to comply with the
                                  directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the
                                  police officers concerned liable for departmental
                                  action, they shall also be liable to be punished for
                                  contempt of court to be instituted before the High
                                  Court having territorial jurisdiction;
                                                (12) We hasten to add that the directions
                                  aforesaid shall not only apply to the case under
           Patna High Court MJC No.1782 of 2025(6) dt.23-04-2026
                                                       3/3




                                             section 498A-I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry
                                             Prohibition Act. Case in hand, but also such cases
                                             where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a
                                             terms which may be less than seven years or which
                                             may extend to seven years, whether with or without
                                             fine.”


                                  2. Upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears

                     that the petitioner was apprehended in connection with an

                     offence punishable under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act and was

                     subsequently released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

                     Hajipur.

                                  3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already

                     been released, no further order is required to be passed in the

                     present matter.

                                  4. Accordingly, the present contempt application

                     stands disposed of.

                                  5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

                     disposed of.



                                                 (Sudhir Singh, J)


                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)
Sachin/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.