Bikru Encounter: "She Was An Important Player In Horrendous Crime Of Killing Of 8 Cops": Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Accused

She allegedly instigated Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death and she is stated to have been atop a house adjoining Vikas Dubey's, during the entire course of the brutal assault.

It has also been alleged that 'K' gave out locations of the policemen, who had concealed themselves to save their lives and exhorted Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death, while the entire encounter between Vikas Dubey and his aids and Policemen was taking place.

Denying her bail, the Bench of Justice J. J. Munir remarked:

"Prima facie, if not at the center 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."

Analyzing the overall look on the circumstances of the case, the Court observed the crime in which she is alleged to have been involved, was not of an ordinary kind.

"Not only the spontaneous elimination of eight policemen in action and six others left injured, is 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," remarked the Court

The matter before the Court

A Criminal Revision was directed against a judgment and order of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat dated 24^th November 2020, dismissing her Criminal Appeal against the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat refusing bail to 'K'.

She has been booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 332, 333, 412, 353, 504, 506, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Section 7 of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

She applied to be declared a juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat and she was found to be 16 years, 10 months and 12 days old on the date of occurrence.

She was declared a juvenile by the Board, and thereafter she made an application for bail to the Board, which was rejected by the Board. She then preferred a second application for bail to the Board, which came to be rejected again.

Thereafter she moved to special court and thereafter to High Court, in revision.

The facts in brief

As per the prosecution's case, the Police officials, in strong numbers, had gone to arrest Vikas Dubey, a dreaded gangster. However, somehow, Vikas got the information that policemen were coming to arrest him and thus, he laid in wait, along with his henchmen, for the Police to arrive.

Vikas's associates, that included his relatives, had positioned themselves at strategic points, atop the roof of his house and those abutting it and as soon as policemen reached there, they opened indiscriminate fire on them, which led to eight police personnel being shot dead and another six sustaining grievous gunshot injuries.

It is the prosecution case, that while the menfolk pumped bullets into the police personnel, the wives (including 'K') of all the accused were aiding and instigating their husbands.

Court's observations

The Court took into account the statements of police officers, other people who claimed that there were women atop the house (including 'K'), who were exhorting that no police personnel should go back alive, and were instigating the men to do so.

The Court also took into account the complaints of her continued close association with hardened criminals, inasmuch as she had threatened other inmates of her resources to get anyone abducted from the Observation Home.

Further, the Court held:

"This Court is of the considered opinion that the short-lived association of the revisionist's with Amar Dubey, a close associate of Vikas Dubey's, followed by her participation in the gruesome crime, and her subsequent conduct in the observation home, firmly place her case in the category where, if released on bail, she would come into association with known criminals."

Therefore, the Court found that she was disentitled to bail under all the three exceptions to the rule, envisaged under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 and thus, criminal revisions failed and stood dismissed.

Case title 

Click here to download order

Read Order