Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that when on 1.8.1998 the decoits managed to escape, the police party made recovery of various articles left by the decoits including a Railway coupon issued in the name of Ram Kripal Singh Patel (MLA) which was valid up to 31.5.1998. The statements of police personnel who were party in the aforesaid encounter were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. By the aforesaid recovery, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that gang members had close relations with the aforesaid MLA Ram Kripal Singh Patel. One personal guard of Ram Kripal Singh Patel was shot dead in the said incident due to which the brother of the applicant along with other B.S.P. activists staged road protest against the police and narrated the atrocities committed by the police force. As the personal guard of MLA Ram Kripal Singh Patel died in a false encounter, the police made inquiry about Ravi Shankar Pal who was actually encountered and it was found that he was a history sheeter. Statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ram Narayan Arkhu in a different case, was endorsed in the general diary wherein he stated that the gang leader was being supported by Ram Kripal Singh Patel and his brother Ram Abhilash by making the house of Ram Kripal Singh Patel available to the decoits. Ram Kripal Singh Patel is said to have made available the keys of his house having factory in it to the decoits. On the basis of aforesaid record available in the police station, as per paper cuttings and on the basis of the information of the informant, the other material collected during investigation in case crime no. 42/98, the Investigating Officer in order to shield his act of false encounter implicated the above political persons under section 216 A I.P.C. with the allegation that these politicians were helping and shielding these criminals.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that allegations made in the FIR are so absurd that no prudent man can ever reach on a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with a view to spite them due to personal and private grudge. As the personal gunner of MLA Ram Kripal Singh Patel was killed by the police in a false encounter, so the police had a grudge with Ram Kripal Singh Patel and his brother Ram Abhilash. It is further argued that as per section 216-A I.P.C. whoever knowing or having reason to believe that any person is about to commit or has recently committed robbery or decoity harbors them or any of them with intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or decoity such person shall be punished under this section and it is submitted that there was no reason to believe that the applicants had knowledge that the decoits had recently committed robbery or they were about to commit any robbery, hence, offence under section 216-A I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against the applicants. Further it is argued that in whole case diary,except the statement of Ram Narayan Arakh recorded in some other cases, there is no evidence against the applicant Ram Abhilash implicating him under section 216-A I.P.C. He is the brother of applicant Ram Kripal Singh Patel who is living separate from him, hence, prayer is made to quash the charge sheet under section 216-A I.P.C. against the applicants.