[ad_1]

Vikas Dubey (File photo)

NEW DELHI: In a rare admission about the judiciary’s failure to keep dreaded criminals and gangsters confined to jails, Chief Justice S A Bobde on Monday conceded that grant of parole by a court of law to gangster Vikas Dubey despite 65 FIRs pending against him reflected institutional failure.
This admission from the CJI-led three-judge bench came after solicitor general Tushar Mehta said Dubey was on parole when he rallied 80-90 criminals to attack a police raid party at his village Bikru on July 3, killing eight policemen using sophisticated weapons. Mehta said the attackers mutilated the bodies of the dead policemen. “They did not get time as the rescue team arrived at the spot quickly. Otherwise, they had made preparations to burn the bodies of the policemen using petrol,” he added.
CJI Bobde said, “Solicitor general, we are appalled by the fact that such a person was released on parole. This is a failure of the system. As an institution, we failed to keep him behind bars. We want all the records relating to his release on parole. We want all the orders (passed by the trial courts) in this regard.”
While ensuring that the Dubey encounter killing will be inquired into by a three-member committee headed by a retired SC judge and comprising retired HC judge S K Agarwal and an ex-DGP rank officer, the CJI sent a clear signal that the bench headed by him will examine whether the trial court weighed the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed by Dubey and his gang before granting him parole.
Giving details of the incident, the UP government in its affidavit had said Dubey had fired nine shots at policemen after escaping through the back door of the vehicle, which skidded and overturned due to heavy rain and when the driver swerved to avoid a herd of cattle, which suddenly appeared on the road.
While all four policemen in the overturned SUV were injured and lost consciousness, Dubey remained unhurt and managed to snatch a pistol from them and fled but was challenged by STF personnel who were following in another vehicle, the affidavit claimed.

[ad_2]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here