Section 392 IPC Bailable or Not | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The repercussions for engaging in robbery are delineated in Section 392 of the IPC. As per this stipulation, individuals convicted of robbery may be subjected to rigorous imprisonment for a maximum duration of ten years, coupled with the potential imposition of a fine.
• Furthermore, in cases where the robbery takes place on a highway during the hours between sunset and sunrise (at night), the prescribed period of imprisonment can be increased to a maximum of 14 years.

Understanding the Legal Concept of Robbery

Robbery, as defined by Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), involves the act of taking or attempting to take property from another individual using force, threat of force, causing injury, instilling fear, or attempting to cause severe harm.

• Robbery involves the intention of permanently depriving the owner of their property, whether movable or immovable.
• It is distinct from theft or extortion and carries severe consequences under the law.

For instance, if a person forcefully takes a mobile phone from another individual with the intention of keeping it for themselves, it constitutes robbery under the IPC.

IPC Section 392

• Definition of Robbery: According to Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, robbery is defined as the act of taking someone else's property through the use of force or threat. The punishment for robbery includes rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine. If the robbery occurs on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment term can be extended to fourteen years.
• Offense and Punishment: Robbery is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine. The offense is cognizable, meaning the police can make an arrest without a warrant, and it is non-bailable. The trial for robbery is conducted by a Magistrate First Class.
• Special Circumstances: If the robbery takes place on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the punishment is increased to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and a fine. The legal procedures for such cases remain the same as regular robbery offenses.
• Related Provisions: Additional provisions related to the punishment for robbery can be found in Sections 393 and 394 of the IPC.
  • Section 393: Attempting to commit robbery is also considered a criminal offense. The punishment for attempted robbery includes rigorous imprisonment for a maximum of seven years and the possibility of being fined.
  • Section 394: This section deals with instances where harm is caused intentionally during an attempted robbery. In such cases, both the offender and any accomplice involved can face severe penalties, including life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, along with fines.

Key Elements of Section 392 IPC

• The individual must have engaged in theft.
• The individual must have intentionally caused or tried to cause death, physical harm, or wrongful restraint, while also fearing immediate death, harm, or restraint.
• The individual must have committed the aforementioned actions either with the intention of theft or during the act of theft, which includes taking away or attempting to take away property obtained through theft.

Understanding the Nature of Robbery Offense

Robbery is classified as a non-bailable offense and falls under the category of cognizable offenses. This means that individuals accused of robbery can be arrested without a warrant.

Important Case Laws

Harish Chandra v. State of U.P. (1976)

• Incident description: In this case, the victim was on a train when the accused forcefully took the victim's wristwatch during a rush of passengers exiting the compartment at Thankpur railway station.
• Legal argument: The defence contended that since the victim was slapped after the theft, the harm caused could not be linked to the theft itself, challenging the application of Section 390 of the IPC.
• Court ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that the slap was intended to aid in stealing the property, stating that the offence clearly fell under Section 390 as harm occurred during the theft.
• Verdict: Both accused were found guilty of Robbery.

Harinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1993)

• Case details: The accused, a gunman for a transport corporation, robbed an assistant cashier and caused injuries during the theft.
• Actions taken: The accused locked the cashier in a room and fled with the stolen money, leaving the injured cashier behind.
• Legal outcome: The Supreme Court convicted the accused of Robbery based on the evidence and injuries sustained by the cashier.

State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli and Ors.

• Ruling significance: To prove Robbery through theft, all five essential elements outlined in Section 378 of the IPC must be established.
• Legal standpoint: Failure to fulfill any of these elements during the theft commission negates the classification of the act as Robbery under Section 390.

Conclusion

• Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the offense of robbery. The punishment for robbery involves rigorous imprisonment for a period that can extend up to ten years, along with the possibility of a fine. In instances where the robbery takes place on a highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment term can be extended to fourteen years.
• Regarding the question of whether Section 392 IPC is bailable or not, it is important to note that robbery is typically considered a non-bailable offense. Non-bailable offenses are those for which the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right and must apply to the court for bail, subject to the court's discretion.