Patna High Court – Orders
Ravi Shankar Kumar vs The Union Of India Through The Director … on 23 April, 2026
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Shailendra Singh
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
2/3contemnors- 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
3/3section 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