Causing Injury To Police, Snatching Away Their Weapons Amounts To Challenge To Rule Of Law: MP High Court Denies Bail In Robbery Case

The Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak was dealing with a bail application moved by the Applicant who was accused of offences punishable under Sections 394, 397, 398, 307, 353, 332 IPC & under Sections 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981.

As per the prosecution story, the Applicant and the other co-accused indulged in looting an ATM. While they were carrying out the machine, they ran into two police constables. When the Police tried stopping them, the Applicant and the co-accused injured the constables and took their weapons with them. The Applicant was later caught and based on his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the incriminating material against him regarding the alleged act was retrieved by the police.

The Applicant submitted that he was falsely accused in the matter owing to his past criminal record. It was argued that his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was bad in law since it was prepared after the seizure memo. It was also submitted that one of the constables involved in the incident could not identify the Applicant during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Thus, it was prayed that the Applicant be granted bail.

Per contra, the State argued that the statements given by the constables and the medical reports supported the Prosecution story. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the Applicant had criminal records across multiple states and that he was a flight risk since he was permanent resident of Rajasthan.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the submissions put forth by the State. The Court noted that the case of the Prosecution was prima facie on a strong footing-

…on perusal of case diary, it appears that applicant is facing serious allegations which is duly supported by the identification carried out regarding his identity. Police Constable Anil Bunkar has identified him in Test Identification Parade. Not only this, Police Constable Anil Bunkar isthe complainant and referred the course of events in categorical term in FIR and thereafter, in his statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. as well as court statement. He stood firm throughout. Not only this, when the applicant and other co-accused tried to escape from the spot where the alleged offence was committed, then they threw the rifle which was snatched from the possession of police constable Sunil Bansal and said recovery as well as its documentation assumes importance in view of contents of the FIR, statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and in TIP proceedings, whereby he was identified by Anil Bunkar. Not only this, recovery of looted weapon alongwith some parts of ATM machine which is subsequently corroborated by the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of co-accused are to be seen holistically and in juxtaposition to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court further opined that the Applicant was facing serious allegations and considering his criminal record and that he was a permanent resident of Rajasthan, he was a flight risk-

By causing injury to Police Constables and snatching away their rifle amount to challenge to the Rule of Law. They interfered with the functions of Public Servants and used force and deter them to perform their public duties. Cumulatively when applicant is facing trial and many witnesses are yet to be examined and looking to the fact that applicant is a habitual offender and operates inter-state, therefore, possibility of his absconsion cannot be ruled out.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court did not find merit in the application and accordingly, the same was dismissed.

Case Title: ARSHAD KHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 283

Click Here To Read/Download Order