The court upheld the validity of proceedings against five accused in a dacoity case, dismissing claims of insufficient evidence against four individuals.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner - accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 and before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.9/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 99 , 402 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

2. Heard Smt. Aishwarya K., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered on an incident that took place on 13.10.2020 in the early hours at 02.00 a.m., when the complainant and other officers were patrolling in the night. On certain credible information that a Car carrying 3 to 5 people, were preparing to commit dacoity holding deadly weapons. The Car was intercepted and what was recovered is an unlicensed pistol, firearms, round bullets, a steel knife and four mobile phones. The Car was seized and the accused therein were arrested and taken into custody. Pursuant to the incident, a crime in Crime No.262/2020 comes to be registered for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject position.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner is on a specific plea that four people cannot be hauled into the offence of committing dacoity in terms of Section 391 of the IPC . Therefore, the entire proceedings must be annulled, as what was found was all licensed material and there was no preparation to commit dacoity.

5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that accused are 5 in number and not 4. After the police completing investigation, in the charge sheet it is indicated as five in number, who are hauled for committing dacoity and what were seized are the deadly weapons, which were found in the Car along with the mobile phones. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have to come out clean in a full blown trial and this Court should not interfere with the proceedings.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain are all a matter of record. The entire issue gets triggered from registration of a crime in crime No.262/2020. The complaint reads as follows:

The number of accused in the charge sheet are 5 and not

4. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for petitioner that the crime is registered against 4 and they cannot be hauled in the commission of dacoity as obtaining under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC , tumbles down. The crime is registered for against 4 members, but accused in the charge sheet are 5. Be that as it may.

8. A perusal at the complaint and the charge sheet is unambiguous that the allegations are shrouded with serious questions of fact, which can only be thrashed out in a full-blown trial. Therefore, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected.

I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence.