ORDER 1. M.Cr.C. Nos. 3421/97, 3422/97 and 3447/97 are being taken up together. Arguments heard. 2. These applications under section 436 CrPC are for anticipatory bail. Applicants Subhash Chandra Jain, Rajendra Kumar Arora and Daljit Singh are apprehending their arrest for the offence punishable under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1965. (Crime No.9 of 1997, Police Station R.P.F. Bina, District Sagar). 3. A question has been raised whether the said offence is bailable or non-bailable. The offence under section 3 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years. If an offence under any law other than the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards it is non-bailable as per part II of Schedule I to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The quantum of the maximum punishment provided by the law determines whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable. Section 8 of the Act lays down the procedure for making inquiry against arrested persons by an officer of the Force. According to provise (a) to sub-section (3) of section 8, 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. The officer of the Force has been authorised to grant bail to the arrested person in suitable cases depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case that does not render the offence bailable. As already stated that offence being punishable with imprisonment for five years it is non-bailable. That is also the view of Rajasthan High Court in Ganesh Chandra v. State 1987 CrLJ 931 . During the course of hearing a reference was made to the decision of Gauhati High Court in Union of India v. State of Assam 1997 CrLJ 1033 by Shri Pandey, Public Prosecutor of R.P.F., therein it has been held relying upon section 8 of the Act that the offence in question is bailable, for the reasons given above. It is respectfully submitted that this decision of Gauhati High Court does not lay down the law correctly. 4. It is respectfully submitted that this decision of Gauhati High Court does not lay down the law correctly. 4. Now coming to the merits the charge against the applicants is that they were in unlawful possession of 630 numbers CBT-9 Plates which had not been sold in the auction. According to the prosecution these plates were removed by their servants at their instance from the railway yard while taking delivery of the sleepers which had been sold to them in auction on 2.6.1997. It is also alleged by the prosecution that Lakhan and Kunno had removed these CBT-9 plates in connivance with the R.P.F. Inspector and the PW 1. All these persons were arrested and have been released on bail presumably under the mistaken belief that the offence in question is bailable. These CBT -9 plates have been recovered from Truck No. MP-07-8-0668 when this truck has being driven by Lakhan. The involvement of the applicants is yet to be established. There is confessional statement of co-accused persons against them. Keeping in view the evidentiary material against the applicants it is directed that on their arrest in this case they shall be released or bail on their executing personal bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety for the like amount. The duration of this order of anticipatory bail shall be upto the date of consideration of the question of regular bail by the trial Court after the filing of the complaint (Salauddin v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (1) MPWN 147 = AIR 1976 SC 1042).