Accused Posed As Police And Tried Honey Trapping Style Robbery: Gujarat High Court Refuses Probation Benefit
Accused posed as local crime branch officials, demanded ₹50,000 for “settlement”; court observes such offences are rising as people seek “easy money by short-cuts”
Justice Ilesh J. Vora, Justice R.T. Vachhani, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has refused to grant probation on good conduct to two accused involved in a honeytrap-style robbery, where they impersonated police officials, assaulted a man, extorted ₹300 from him and demanded ₹50,000 for “settlement”.
The Division Bench declined to extend the benefit of probation under Section 360 CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, observing that impersonating police officers and extorting money under threat is a serious offence affecting society at large, the Court remarked that “such kind of offences are increasing because the people at large earns easy money by adopting such type of short-cuts”. In view of the nature of the crime, the Court held that no leniency was warranted.
Now while the trial court had convicted the accused for dacoity, the Division Bench noted that once one accused was acquitted, and two had died during pendency, the number fell below five, an essential ingredient under Section 391 IPC. Accordingly, the Court altered the conviction from dacoity under Section 395 IPC to robbery under Section 392 IPC, holding that the statutory requirement of five persons was not met.
Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani observed, “In light of the statutory provisions, and considering the nature of offence, its impact on the society and the circumstances in which offence was having committed we do not agree to release the accused on probation on good conduct. The accused posed themselves as police official of local branch and robbed Rs.300/- and executed the offence of robbery, as discussed hereinabove and now-a-days, such kind of offences are increasing because the people at large earns easy money by adopting such type of short-cuts, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence and to set the example of the society, justice would be met if the sentence of five years imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 395 would reduce to the sentence of two years for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, the accused appellants have been sentenced to undergo two years for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code…”.
Bhargav Pandya, APP appeared for the appellant and Advocate Ashish M Dagli appeared for the respodent.
In the pertinent matter, it was alleged that on 04-01-2010 in an incident where the complainant, travelling from Ahmedabad to Nadiad, gave a lift to a woman who later lured him and suggested going to a secluded place.
Thereafter, four persons arrived in a car, introduced themselves as officials of the Local Crime Branch, Kheda, accused the complainant of misconduct, and assaulted him with a stick. They allegedly took ₹300, his mobile phone and driving licence, and demanded ₹50,000 to avoid criminal action.
The Court therefore set aside the conviction under Section 395 IPC and instead held the surviving accused guilty of robbery under Section 392 IPC and personating a public servant under Section 170 IPC.
“…Extortion is robbery, if the offender at the time of committing extortion, put in fear of instant hurt and wrongfully restrained the victim and therefore, the act of robbing Rs.300/- and an attempt to commit extortion of Rs.50,000/- would certainly fall under the definition of robbery and in our opinion, the appellants accused were found in the possession of Rs.300/-, a driving licence and mobile phone of PW:1 soon after the incident of robbery and therefore, though the charge against the accused under Section 395 is not proved, but charge of robbery was already there and considering the number of accused, the charge under Section 392 which provides a punishment of robbery has been proved and established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt”, the bench noted in the judgment.
Furthermore, rejecting the defence argument that identification was unreliable in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), the Court held that TIP is not substantive evidence and that dock identification is sufficient where the accused and victim remained together for a considerable duration in broad daylight.
Cause Title: State Of Gujarat v. Vishalkumar Somchandra Shah & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:12748-DB]
Appearances:
Appellant: Bhargav Pandya, APP.
Respondent: Ashish M Dagli, G R Manav, PV Patadiya, Jigar Salvi, JK Parmar, Advocates.