‘He Was Actively Involved In The Kanpur Bikru Massacre’: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Assisting Slain Gangster Vikas Dubey

The bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed that Bajpai was actively involved in the incident and he actually assisted Dubey by providing him with Rs. 2 lakh and 25 cartridges to be used in the incident and further, provided vehicles to him to enable him to escape after committing one of the most heinous crimes.

The case against Bajpai

As per the prosecution's case, on the night of July 2, 2021, 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, which included his relatives, had positioned themselves at strategic points, atop the roof of his house and as soon as policemen reached there, they opened indiscriminate fire on them, which led to eight police personnel being shot dead and another nine sustaining grievous gunshot injuries.

During the course of the investigation, on the basis of the statement of the main accused Vikas Dubey, it was revealed that the applicant-accused (Bajpai) was present in a meeting with Vikas Dubey and other accused persons on the evening of July 2, 2020, to carve out a plan to commit the murder of police persons who were scheduled to approach the slain leader Vikas Dubey to arrest him.

It was further found in the probe that the applicant provided money and ammunition to the Dubey and after that, he provided safe passage to him to perform the journey.

Consequently, he was booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 333, 307, 302, 396, 412, 120-B, 34, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. He moved the instant application seeking bail in the case.

Arguments put forth

Before the Court, his counsel argued that the applicant had been made accused in the present case only on the basis of his confessional statement and the statement of co-accused Prashant Shukla, Vikas Dubey and Vipul Dubey was made before the police, therefore, they are not admissible evidence.

It was further contended by him that he was not physically present at the place where the incident took place. Instead, he was at an engagement party in a hotel in Kanpur and when he came to know about the incident through TV and other sources, he himself called the police.

It was also submitted that he also provided the video footage of the party to the police and that he had met Vikas Dubey only once or twice at parties and apart from this, he had no relation with him.

Lastly, it was argued that there is no evidence available on record that Bajpai entered into a conspiracy or provided any assistance to Dubey.

On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, appearing for the state government, opposed the bail plea by reiterating the allegations against him. It is further contended that the applicant is a habitual offender. After the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against him.

It was also submitted that Bajpai is a hardened criminal and there is every likelihood that if he is enlarged on bail, he may indulge in the commission of the crime and shall make his best efforts to pressurize the witnesses to depose in his favour.

Lastly, it was submitted that the statement of the main accused Vikas Dubey against the accused Bajpai is a statement of a dead person who cannot be found to give evidence and therefore, his statement is to be considered against him under Section 32 (3) of the Evidence Act, 1872.

High Court’s observations

At the outset, the Court noted that as per Section 32 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that the statement made by a dead person is legally recognized and can be used in evidence even though it does not relate to the cause of his death.

In this regard, the Court perused the statements of Dubey to note that the statement made by Dubey against Bajpai will be considered prima facie to indicate his involvement in the Bikru massacre.

Further, the Court took note of the statements of other co-accused against Bajpai to observe thus:

“On the basis of the aforesaid statements, prima facie it transpires that the present applicant was well known and was a trusted person of Vikas Dubey. The main accused Vikas Dubey invited him along with the other accused to attend a meeting in the evening of 02.07.2020 for committing conspiracy and to further plan to commit the incident known as Vikroo massacre. During this meeting, the present applicant provided money amounting to Rs. 2 lakh and 25 cartridges to the main accused Vikas Dubey to be used in the crime. Further the present applicant promised Vikas Dubey he would be available outside his house to provide him vehicles for his safe passage after the incident to his next destination.”

Further, relying upon Apex Court’s Judgment in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana LL 2021 SC 221, wherein it was held that the High Court while granting bail must focus on the role of the accused in deciding the aspect of parity, the Court said that in view of his complicity in the crime, he is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

“It is argued on behalf of State that the co-accused Sushil Kumar Tiwari against whom the present applicant is claiming the parity had criminal history of four cases while the applicant has a criminal history of 14 cases to his credit. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity on this score also. 42. In view of the above, the criminal history of the applicant, which includes the offenses of heinous nature, is also taken into consideration,” the Court further observed as it dismissed the bail plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate Nazrul Islam Jafri, assisted by Advocates Deepak Singh and Shiva Kant Dixit

Counsel for Respondent: Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal assisted by Advocate Abhijeet Mukherjee

Case title - Jay Kant Bajpai @ Jay vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 190 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30712 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 190

Click Here To Read/Download Order