Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Friday rejected the bail plea of the wife of Amar Dubey, one of the accused in the Bikru ambush in which eight policemen, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) and three Sub-Inspectors (SI), were attacked. was. The slain gangster Vikas Dubey and his associates killed him.
The ambush took place on July 3, 2020 when the police had gone to arrest Vikas Dubey from his house in Bikru village of Kanpur Nagar. Vikas Dubey and his associates opened indiscriminate fire on the police force, killing eight policemen and injuring six others.
Dismissing the revision petition filed by Amar Dubey’s wife, Justice JJ Munir observed, “A comprehensive look at the circumstances of the case reveals the fact that the incident in which the revisionist was involved was not of a normal nature. . The spontaneous expulsion of eight policemen and injuring six others in the action is not only a heinous crime that shakes the conscience of the society, but also an act that strikes at the roots of the state’s authority in its area. ”
“This speaks to the immeasurable extent of lack of fear of the state in the minds of those who conceived and committed this dastardly act,” the court said.
The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the wife of Amar Dubey, associate and relative of Vikas Dubey, challenging the dismissal of his bail plea by the trial court, seeking his release on bail on the ground That he was declared a juvenile by the concerned juvenile board. on 1st September 2020.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, her age was about 16 years and 10 months on the date of the incident and a few days before the incident she was married to a relative of Vikas Dubey.
According to the petitioner, she was not a member of Vikas Dubey’s gang, but her husband was a relative of Vikas and they had gone to Vikas’s house on the date of the incident. He had no role in the incident.
The state government opposed the bail plea on the ground that as per the statements of the police survivor, who was a survivor of the horrific incident, the juvenile was an active participant in the entire attack. She was assisting and provoking the men to not spare any policeman.
The State Government’s counsel further argued, “Considering that he is more than 16 years of age, and the offense involved is heinous in nature, the Board has, on preliminary assessment, held that the revisionist had the necessary mental and physical force to do so.” Ability to understand the offence, as well as the consequences. The Board has also considered the circumstances in which he committed the offense and all the while holding that it is a fit case where the petitioner is eligible to be tried as an adult.
The court, while rejecting the bail plea, observed, “Prima facie, if not at the center stage of this diabolical act, then certainly as an important player, the revisionists have actively participated. In these circumstances, the revisionists have to Allowing release on bail will shake the confidence of law abiding citizens in the rule of law and authority of the state. If done so, it will surely defeat the goal of justice.”
The court, however, clarified that the remarks made by it are confined to the decision on the bail plea of the revisionist and should in no way be construed as comments on the merits of the case to be examined at trial.
FacebookTwitterLinkedinE-mail
.