Advocate Ravi Drall secured regular bail for two accused in robbery cases registered at Rani Bagh Police Station, Delhi. The FIRs alleged offences under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in connection with an alleged robbery involving approximately ?9 lakh and a gold chain.

The accused had previously faced criminal proceedings, including an MCOCA case, in which they were acquitted by the Sessions Court, Rohini, in 2019. They were subsequently arrested in the present robbery cases.

The defence argued that there was insufficient material connecting the accused with the alleged robbery. No case property was recovered from them, and the prosecution case did not contain supporting material such as CCTV footage or call detail records establishing their involvement. The FIRs also did not contain an identification of the accused by the complainants.

The Sessions Court, Rohini, Delhi, granted regular bail to both accused after considering the facts and circumstances of the cases.

Background of the Robbery Cases

Two FIRs were registered at Rani Bagh Police Station under Section 392/34 IPC.

The allegations concerned the robbery of approximately ?9 lakh and a gold chain. During the investigation, the accused were arrested in connection with the cases.

The defence case was that the accused had been implicated without sufficient evidence establishing their participation in the alleged robbery.

An important circumstance highlighted before the court was that no alleged case property was recovered from either accused.

Previous MCOCA Case and Its Relevance to Bail

The accused had previously been involved in criminal proceedings, including a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).

However, the accused had been acquitted by the Sessions Court, Rohini, in the MCOCA case in 2019.

Therefore, previous criminal proceedings could not by themselves establish that the accused had committed the robbery alleged in the present FIRs. The bail proceedings required consideration of the evidence and circumstances relating to the present cases.

This distinction is important. Previous involvement or an earlier criminal case is not the same as proof of guilt in a separate case.

Defence Arguments by Advocate Ravi Drall

Advocate Ravi Drall challenged the prosecution's case on the basis of the material available in the investigation.

The defence highlighted several circumstances:

• No alleged case property was recovered from the accused.

• There was no CCTV footage relied upon to establish their presence at the alleged crime scene.

• No call detail record was available to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

• The complainants had not claimed to identify the accused in the FIRs.

• The earlier MCOCA proceedings had resulted in acquittal.

• The prosecution was required to establish the accused's connection with the present allegations on the basis of evidence relating to the present cases.

The defence therefore argued that continued custody was not justified merely on the basis of suspicion or previous criminal proceedings.

What Is Regular Bail?

Regular bail is generally sought by a person who is already in custody. The court considers whether the accused should be released during the pendency of the investigation or criminal proceedings, subject to appropriate conditions.

Bail is not an acquittal. A person released on bail continues to face the criminal proceedings unless the case is subsequently terminated or the accused is acquitted.

The present case is an example of a bail court examining the specific evidence and circumstances of the allegations rather than treating previous criminal proceedings as conclusive proof of involvement in a new offence.

What Is Robbery Under the IPC?

Because these FIRs relate to 2021, the relevant provision was Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 390 explained when theft or extortion amounts to robbery. Theft becomes robbery when, for committing the theft or carrying away the stolen property, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.

Similarly, extortion becomes robbery in circumstances involving the immediate presence of the person put in fear and fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.

The statutory definition is important because not every theft or property-related offence automatically amounts to robbery.

Punishment for Robbery Under Section 392 IPC

At the time of these alleged offences, Section 392 IPC prescribed punishment for robbery.

Ordinarily, robbery could attract imprisonment extending up to ten years and fine. The provision also contained a higher punishment framework for robbery committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise.

The precise offence and punishment in any criminal case depend on the facts alleged and the provisions invoked in the FIR and charge.

Robbery and Dacoity Are Not the Same

Robbery and dacoity are related but legally distinct offences.

Under Section 391 IPC, dacoity involved five or more persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery, or persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery together with persons present and aiding the commission or attempt, where the total number was five or more.

Section 395 IPC prescribed punishment for dacoity.

Therefore, the number and role of persons involved can be important in determining whether the alleged offence falls within robbery or dacoity.

Current Law: BNS Has Replaced the IPC

The present criminal-law framework is different from the law applicable when these 2021 FIRs were registered.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the IPC for offences covered by the new regime. Under the BNS, robbery is addressed under Section 309, while dacoity is addressed under Section 310.

Therefore, legal content concerning an older FIR should not automatically substitute the current BNS section numbers for the IPC provisions that applied when the alleged offence occurred.

Factors That Can Matter in a Robbery Bail Application

A bail application in a robbery case is decided according to the facts of the particular case. Depending on the circumstances, the court may consider:

• The nature and seriousness of the allegations.

• The specific role attributed to the accused.

• The evidence collected during investigation.

• Whether any recovery remains pending.

• Whether the accused was identified by the complainant or witnesses.

• CCTV, electronic or other corroborative evidence.

• The possibility of influencing witnesses.

• The possibility of tampering with evidence.

• The period of custody.

• The stage of investigation.

• Whether the charge sheet has been filed.

• The antecedents of the accused and their relevance to the present case.

The existence of previous criminal proceedings may be considered by a court, but the accused's guilt in the present case has to be determined through the evidence relating to that case.

Why This Bail Case Is Important

This case highlights an important distinction in criminal proceedings: previous allegations do not automatically establish involvement in a new offence.

According to the case facts presented, the defence challenged the prosecution evidence in the present robbery FIRs and pointed out the absence of recovery from the accused, the absence of identified CCTV or CDR evidence and the lack of identification claimed by the complainants.

The court ultimately granted regular bail to the two accused after considering the facts and circumstances of the cases.

Advocate Ravi Drall's Role in the Case

Advocate Ravi Drall represented the two accused in the robbery bail proceedings before the Sessions Court, Rohini, Delhi.

The defence focused on the evidence relating to the present FIRs and challenged the connection between the accused and the alleged robbery.

For another case study involving bail in a serious criminal allegation, read Bail in an Attempt to Murder Case. You can also read about Bail in an Extortion Case to understand how courts may consider investigation status and evidence while deciding bail.

Conclusion: Regular Bail Depends on the Evidence and Circumstances

A robbery allegation can have serious consequences, but a bail application requires the court to consider the specific allegations, evidence, role attributed to the accused, investigation status and other relevant circumstances.

In this case, the defence highlighted the absence of recovery and the lack of identified scientific or electronic evidence connecting the accused with the alleged robbery. The previous MCOCA proceedings had also ended in acquittal.

The Sessions Court, Rohini, ultimately granted regular bail to both accused.

If you or a family member is facing arrest or bail proceedings in a robbery or other criminal case, Ravi Drall and Associates can assist with understanding the available legal remedies and the applicable procedure.

For legal assistance, contact Ravi Drall and Associates.