Section 392 IPC Bailable or Not

The consequences for committing robbery are outlined in Section 392 of the IPC. According to this provision, individuals found guilty of robbery will face strict imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years, along with the possibility of being fined. 

Moreover, if the robbery occurs on a highway during the hours between sunset and sunrise, i.e., at night, the duration of imprisonment can be extended to up to 14 years.

What is Robbery?

In all instances of robbery, there is either theft or extortion involved. Robbery is a criminal offence that is defined in Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the IPC, robbery occurs when a person takes or attempts to take property from another individual through the following means:

• By using force or by threatening to use force.
• By causing injury to the person or instilling fear of injury.
• By attempting to kill or inflict severe harm on the person.
• The property that is taken or attempted to be taken can be either movable or immovable, and it must be done with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of that property.

IPC Section 392: Defined

According to Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code:

“Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”

Additional provisions related to the punishment for Robbery are outlined in Sections 393 and 394 of the IPC.

Under Section 393, attempting to commit Robbery is considered a criminal offence and is punishable by rigorous imprisonment for a maximum of seven years and the possibility of being fined.

Section 394 states that if the offender intentionally causes harm while attempting to commit Robbery, both the offender and any accomplice involved will face severe penalties. This can include either life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a period of up to ten years, in addition to being liable for a fine.

Essential Features of Section 392 IPC

Section 392 of the IPC deals with the punishment for the offence of Robbery. In order for an individual to be liable under this section and face punishment, certain essential elements must be fulfilled. These essentials are as follows:

• The accused must have committed theft.
• The accused must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, bodily harm, or wrongful restraint and feared instant death, bodily harm, or wrongful restraint.
• The accused must have committed the aforementioned act either for the purpose of committing theft or while committing theft, including carrying away or attempting to carry away property acquired through theft.

If all the above-mentioned essentials are met, the criminal can be held liable for Robbery and subjected to the punishment prescribed under Section 392 of the IPC.

Is the Offence of Robbery Bailable Offence?

No, Robbery is not a bailable offence but a cognizable offence.

Important Case Laws

In the case of Harish Chandra v. State of U.P. (1976), the incident took place when the victim boarded a train at Chakarpur railway station. The accused, co-accused, and another person entered the same compartment. When the train reached Thankpur railway station around 9:30 p.m., there was a rush of passengers exiting the compartment. Taking advantage of the situation, the accused forcefully took the victim’s wristwatch. When the victim raised an alarm, the co-accused jumped out of the compartment followed by the victim. Eventually, all the accused were apprehended, and the stolen items were recovered. Both accused were charged with Robbery.

During the trial, the defence argued that since the victim was slapped after the watch was stolen, the harm caused could not be considered as being done to commit the theft, thus questioning the application of Section 390 of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the co-accused slapped the victim to facilitate the accused in carrying away the stolen property.

According to the court, considering the circumstances, the offence clearly fell under the provisions of Section 390 of the IPC, as the section states that theft becomes Robbery if harm is caused while carrying or attempting to carry away the stolen property. Therefore, the Supreme Court found both accused guilty of the offence of Robbery.

In the case of Harinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1993), the accused was employed as a gunman for Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation in Kapurthala. The accused committed a robbery by stealing Rs 32,936 from an assistant cashier in the same corporation. Additionally, the accused caused injuries to the cashier during the Robbery.

Afterwards, the accused locked the cashier in a room and secured the door from the outside. When the cashier raised an alarm after the accused had left, the police arrived and discovered the confined cashier, evidence of the Robbery, and serious injuries on the cashier’s body. The Supreme Court found the accused guilty of the offence of Robbery.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli and Ors., it was held that to establish the offence of Robbery by committing the offence of theft, it is necessary to prove all five essential elements specified in Section 378 of the IPC, which constitute theft. If any of these five elements are not fulfilled during the commission of theft, then the offence of Robbery under Section 390 cannot be considered to have been committed.

Conclusion

Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to the offence of Robbery. The punishment for Robbery includes rigorous imprisonment for a term that can extend up to ten years, along with the possibility of a fine. If the Robbery occurs 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, robbery is not bailable.