Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Smt. Rekha Angihotri, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 1263 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506, 353, 332, 333, 396, 412, 120B, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and, 3/4 Explosive Substance Act, registered at Police Station Chaubepur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. which has been registered naming 21 accused persons and referring to 60-70 other persons as accused who were also armed. The statement of the first informant Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Station House Officer of Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Dehat is the same as has been stated in the F.I.R. It is argued that subsequently Sub-Inspector Kunwar Pal Singh of Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Dehat, was interrogated and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein for the first time he names the applicant in the present matter and states that on the roof of the house of Vikas Dubey (an accused who is now dead) and on the roof of nearby houses some ladies were shouting loudly that the police personnels have come and they will not be able to go back and were exhorting the accused persons to kill the police personnels and were saying that no one should be left. He then inquired about the ladies and came to know that the ladies who were shouting are Smt. Kshama the wife of Sanjay Dubey@Sanju, Smt. Khushi the wife of Amar Dubey and Smt. Rekha Agnihotri (the present applicant) the wife of Daya Shanker @ Kallu.

4. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned any overt act whatsoever. She has been assigned only an ornamental role of exhortation. The applicant is a lady and is entitled to the benefit of Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para- 15 and 17 of the affidavit in support of bail application and is in jail since 05.7.2020.

11. The case here is one where the association between the revisionist and her deceased husband might have been short; it was not sweet. This Court has carefully looked into the submissions of Sub-Inspector Vishwanath Mishra, Constable Rajiv Kumar, Sub-Inspector Azhar Ishrat, Sub-Inspector Kunwar Pal Singh and Constable Sudhakar Pandey, besides Constable Nem Singh. These statements are recorded in C.D. No. 1 dated 03.07.2020, C.D. No. 4 dated 06.07.2020, C.D. No. 72 dated 10.09.2020, C.D. No. 74 dated 12.09.2020 and C.D. No. 86 dated 25.09.2020. Sub-Inspector Vishwanath Mishra, in his statement under Section 161 of the Code, has stated that there were women atop the house, who were exhorting that no police personnel should go back alive, and were instigating the men to do so. The Sub-Inspector has stated that he inquired about the identity of the women and came to know that they were - Smt. Bhavna, wife of Samir Dubey alias Sanju, Smt. Khushi, wife of Amar Dubey (the revisionist), Smt. Rekha Agnihotri, wife of Daya Shanker alias Kallu. All the officers and men, whose statements have been recorded, have credited the revisionist with the role of instigating and exhorting the men to do every man in the police party to death. Constable Rajiv Kumar, who was in the thick of action, has stated that Vikas Dubey and his men looked around the entire place, searching out police officers and men to shoot them. He has said that he saw Smt. Rekha Agnihotri, wife of Daya Shankar standing atop the rooftop of Vikas Dubey's house, exhorting men to shoot down the police personnel, and his companions present on the spot told him that Khushi, along with Bhavna Dubey and Shanti Devi were giving out locations of the policemen, who had concealed themselves to save their lives and exhorting Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to death. Likewise, in the statement of Sub-Inspector Azhar Ishrat recorded under Section 161 of the Code, it is said that there were a few women atop the other houses located around Vikas Dubey's house, who were exhorting Dubey's associates to eliminate all policemen. He has further stated that he inquired about the identity of those women, and came to know that they were Smt. Bhavna, wife of Samir Dubey alias Sanju, Smt. Khushi, wife of Amar Dubey (the revisionist), Smt. Rekha Agnihotri, wife of Daya Shanker alias Kallu. There are, thus, accounts of various policemen about the very overt participation of the revisionist in the gruesome murder of as many as eight policemen in uniform, who were about their duty. She is credited with the role of exhorting men in Vikas Dubey's gang to eliminate every one of the policemen. The officers and men, whose statements have been recorded under Section 161, were all part of the police party that was in the thick of action, when they came under heavy fire from Vikas Dubey and his men, on the fateful night. Their statements on account of the occurrence at this stage, therefore, cannot be ignored.

12. It may be true, as already said, that the revisionist was married to Amar Dubey a few days before the occurrence, but from the account of all the eye-witnesses, she was certainly not one who was an idle spectator. She played a decisive role prima facie in the gruesome crime. The question now is that the revisionist, being a child in conflict with law, does her case fall into any of the exceptions to the universal rule of bail, postulated under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015? This Court does not know under what circumstances and by what origins of association she was married to Amar Dubey, who was, apparently, a faithful associate of Vikas Dubey. It is quite possible that the marriage was short-lived, but the association was long, on account of which, a newly-wed bride was seen moving around with men wielding guns, directing their fire to hidden policemen, and exhorting them to shoot each policemen to death. If the witnesses, who were all policemen and members of the party, many of whom fell in action, are to be believed, the revisionist's act in standing atop the roof of a house close to Vikas Dubey's, in the thick of gunfire and exhorting Dubey's men to eliminate all members of the police party, is conduct not even remotely compatible with the picture of a newly-wed bride, who was caught unawares, that Mr. Mishra wants this Court to believe.