The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on a bail plea filed by Khushi Dubey, minor wife of Amar Dubey, an accused in the Bikru encounter, wherein gangster Vikas Dubey and his accomplices had killed eight police officials on the night of July 2, 2020.
A bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari stated that it will only give any opinion after the reply from the state of Uttar Pradesh. Further, the bench also sought the response of state apropos the minor age of accused Khushi Dubey at the time of arrest. Khushi had challenged the order of Allahabad High Court, which rejected her bail application.
Khushi’s Counsel argued that she was 17 years and 10 months old, when she was arrested and that she got married just a few days before the incident. He further stated that another FIR was filed against Khushi when she was in custody and the bail applicant has nothing to do with the incident. Further, she has been in jail custody for a year now.
On the night of July 2, 2020, a police team had gone to Bikru village in Kanpur Nagar, to arrest Vikas Dubey from his house. Police faced an ambush set by the dreaded gangster, who along with his henchmen, opened indiscriminate firing on the police force. This led to death of eight police personnel and grievous gunshot injuries to another six, besides a Station House Officer of the local police station.
The police personnel who survived the shootout said in their statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure that while the men pumped bullets into the police personnel, wives of all the accused were aiding and instigating their husbands. Khushi was also credited with the role of instigating the men. She is stated to have been atop a house adjoining Vikas Dubey’s, during the entire course of the brutal assault.
Khushi had earlier applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), wherein she was found to be 16 years, 10 months and 12 days old on the date of occurrence. The JJB, however, rejected the bail application of the accused two times. She then filed an appeal before the Sessions court under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which was also rejected. Khushi then moved the High Court, wherein the court while rejecting the appeal, observed that the case wherein the accused is involved is not of ordinary kind.
The Court noted that 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. Even if not primarily but certainly as an important player, the accused seems to have actively participated. However, the court also opined that the remarks are confined to judging the accused’s bail plea and should, in no way, be understood or construed as comments on the merits of the case.