HC rejects bail plea of wife of Vikas Dubey’s aide

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court has rejected the bail plea filed by the wife of an aid of gangster Vikas Dubey, one of the accused in the Bikru ambush in which eight policemen were killed.

The court rejected the bail plea as it felt allowing it ‘will shake the law-abiding citizens’ faith in the rule of law and the state’s authority.’

To recall, on July 3, 2020, when police went to arrest Vikas Dubey from his house in Bikru village of Kanpur Nagar, Vikas and his associates opened indiscriminate fire on the police force, which led to eight police personnel being shot dead and six other policemen getting grievous gunshot injuries.

Justice JJ Munir dismissed the revision petition filed by the wife of an aide and relative of Vikas Dubey, against rejection of her bail plea by the lower court, seeking her release on bail on the ground that she was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Board concerned on September 1, 2020.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, she was about 16 years and 10 months old on the date of the incident and a few days before the incident, she was married to the relative of Vikas Dubey.

According to the petitioner, she was not a member of the gang of Vikas Dubey. Rather her husband was a relative of Vikas and on the day of the incident they went to Vikas’s house. She had no role in the incident.

The state government opposed the bail plea on the ground that as per statements of the survivor policeman of that ghastly episode, the juvenile was an active participant throughout the assault. She was aiding and instigating the men to not spare any policeman.

The state government counsel further argued, “Considering that she is above 16 years of age and the offence involved is heinous in nature, the Board has opined, on a preliminary assessment, that the revisionist has the requisite mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, as also the ability to understand the consequences. The Board has also considered the circumstances in which she committed the dereliction and doing all this, opined that it is a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be tried as an adult.”

After hearing the concerned parties, the court observed, “An overall look at the circumstances of the case brings to mind the fact that the occurrence, in which the revisionist was involved, was not of an ordinary kind. Not only was the spontaneous elimination of eight policemen in action and six others left injured a horrendous crime that shocks the conscience of the society, but also an act that strikes at the roots of the state’s authority in its territory.”

“It speaks about the unfathomable extent of the lack of fear of the state in the minds of those who conceived and executed the dastardly act,” said the court.

The court, while rejecting the plea, observed, “Prima facie, if not at the centre stage of this diabolical act, certainly as an important player, the revisionist seems to have actively participated. In the circumstances, permitting the revisionist to walk out free on bail would shake the law-abiding citizens’ faith in the rule of law and the state’s authority. If that were to be done, it would certainly defeat the end of justice.”

However, the court clarified that the remarks made by it were confined to judging the revisionist’s bail plea and should, in no way, be understood or construed as comments on the merits of the case, that was to be judged at the trial.