The Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the fourth bail of the applicant in a robbery case by observing that causing injury to Police Constables and snatching away their rifle amounts to a challenge to the Rule of Law. The Court also considered that the applicant is a habitual offender and operates inter-state.
Brief Facts:
The applicant who is accused of the offence punishable under Sections 394, 397, 398, 307, 353, 332 of the IPC and Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act had filed for fourth bail application u/S.439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant and co-accused were found looting an ATM machine and later caught by the Police. The Police had retrieved the incriminating material against the accused based on his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was the case of the petitioner that he had been falsely incriminated on the basis of criminal history. The memo under Section 27 of Evidence Act was also prepared subsequent to the seizure memo. Therefore, it cannot be read into the memo of the applicant. In the identification parade, out of two police constables Anil Bunkar and Sunil Bansal, one of the constables, namely Sunil Bansal did not identify the present applicant in Test Identification Parade held by Investigation Officer. Therefore, he requested bail by looking into the custody period and on above mentioned grounds.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended by the learned Counsel of the Respondent that during the commission of the offence, the applicant and other co-accused caused injury to both the police constables and took away their rifle, which was later found from the place of occurrence of the offence. He further contended that the applicant bears a criminal record of 15 cases and he is a permanent resident of Rajasthan. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that if he is released on bail, then he may abscond. Therefore, looking at the allegation against the applicant, his application for a grant of bail has to be dismissed.
Observation of the Court
This Court observed that the accused is a habitual offender, and a total of 15 cases have been registered against him in States like of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Therefore the possibility of his absconding cannot be ruled out prima facie. Further, the Court observed that there is a recovery of looted weapon along with some parts of the ATM machine from the applicant, and subsequently corroborated by the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The applicant had also interfered with the functions of Public Servants and used force and deterred them from performing their public duties. The Court noted that causing injury to Police Constables and snatching away their rifle amount to a challenge to the Rule of Law. Therefore, looking at the above-mentioned grounds and the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender and operates inter-state, the applicant's bail was rejected.
The decision of the Court:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court had denied the bail to the applicant by observing that he is a habitual offender and interfered with the functions of Public Servants.
Case Title: ARSHAD KHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anand Pathak
Case no.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54836 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: MS Monica Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Rajeev Upadhyay
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments