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 was a habitual offender and operated inter-state.
Brief Facts:
The applicant who was 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 and later caught by the Police. The Police 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 based on criminal history. The memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was also prepared after 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 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 has a criminal record of 15 cases and is a permanent resident of Rajasthan. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that if he was 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 was a habitual offender and a total of 15 cases have been registered against him in States like Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Therefore the possibility of his absconding cannot be ruled out prima facie. Further, the Court observed that there was a recovery of the looted weapon along with some parts of the ATM 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 was a habitual offender and operated inter-state, the applicant's bail was rejected.
The decision of the Court:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court denied the bail to the applicant by observing that he was 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 @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
