Decoity accused granted bail in day light lot case: Ravi Drall Advocate

Decoity accused granted bail in day light lot case: Ravi Drall Advocate

Falsely implicated accused in looting case granted regular bail by Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Complainant identified co-accused person in Test Identification Parade but his statements were contradictory to himself. As per contents of FIR the complainant was carrying Rs. 2 lac with him lateron during the investigation he claimed that he was carrying more than 10 lacs rupees in his scooty. As per allegeations the scooty of complainant was intercepted by accused persons  at gun point and after snatching the sccoty of complainant money was taken out and the scooty was left at distance of few kilometers. Advocate Ravi Drall argued that the manner of recovery is disputed and the accused was not seen anywherein CCTV replied upon by the investigating agency.  It was further argued by Advcate Ravi Drall that offence U.S 397 IPC is not made out against the Accused person as no recovery of weapon has been made from him and it is settled preposition of law that provisions of Sec. 397 IPC are attracted only against the person who “uses” the weapon during he crime.

Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code
395. Punishment for dacoity.—Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous impris­onment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.—If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any per­son, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Section 439 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-

(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub- section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.

In case, Ashok Sagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) – 2018 SCC Online Del 9548, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that imprisonment of an accused during the course of investigation and trial is not meant to be punitive and the requirement of arrest at this stage is only to secure the cooperation of the accused and to prevent any potential prejudice being caused to the investigation if it is shown that such prejudice is likely to be caused. If no such apprehension exists, there can be no reasonable ground to arrest the accused, as incarceration would then assume a punitive avatar.

About the Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may also like these

× How can I help you?