Allahabad HC grants bail to former SHO in Bikru policemen ambush case
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a former station house officer of Chaubepur in Kanpur who is an accused in the Bikru ambush case in which eight policemen were killed in 2020.
Vinay Kumar Tiwari had allegedly informed main accused gangster Vikas Dubey about an ensuing raid of police against him.
In the ambush by the gangster, as many as eight policemen were killed on July 3, 2020.
Granting bail to Tiwari, Justice Siddharth on June 16 said, "Having considered the submissions of the parties, finding force in the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side, applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial, the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail."
During the course of hearing, Tiwari's counsel submitted that he is in jail since July 8, 2020. The prosecution took more than two-and-a-half years to commence the trial on March 1, 2023 after filing of the charge sheet on September 30, 2020.
Before the trial court, there are 102 prosecution witnesses and about 13 have been examined.
There is no credible evidence collected by the investigating officer against Tiwari to prove that he informed main accused Dubey about the police raid against him nor his relationship with the gangster was proved, the counsel argued.
A number of co-accused have also been enlarged on bail, the counsel said.
Opposing the bail plea of Tiwari, the state's counsel submitted that he and co- accused KK Sharma, who is also a policeman, conspired with Dubey, which led to the incident and the eight police personnel were murdered.
The counsel also submitted that 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 102. The trial will conclude soon.
The counsel further informed that the fifth bail application of Sharma was rejected by the co-ordinate bench of the court on May 12.
On July 3, 2020, DSP Devendra Mishra and seven other Uttar Pradesh Police personnel were killed in the ambush launched by Dubey's gang in Bikru village in Kanpur when they were on their way to arrest the gangster.
Following these events, Dubey was killed when he tried to escape from police custody.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Privacy is a fundamental right but is subject to reasonable curbs: High Court
BHOPAL: In a ruling that could shape how digital evidence is treated in matrimonial disputes, Madhya Pradesh HC has upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats, even if obtained without consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions - particularly if it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which too is a constitutional guarantee, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed in a recent order. The petition was filed by a woman challenging a family court order that allowed her estranged husband to exhibit private chats as evidence in an ongoing divorce case. The couple married on Dec 1, 2016, and have a seven-year-old daughter. The husband filed for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and adultery. To substantiate his claims, he relied on WhatsApp conversations that were allegedly forwarded to his phone via an app secretly installed on his wife's mobile phone. These messages allegedly indicated an extramarital relationship. When the husband sought to introduce the WhatsApp chats as evidence during trial, the wife objected on the grounds that the material had been obtained illegally, in violation of her fundamental right to privacy. Her counsel argued that the husband's method to obtain the chats breached the IT Act. HC rejected these arguments, taking the view that under section 14 of the Family Courts Act, courts have the liberty to accept any evidence - regardless of admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act - if it aids in the effective resolution of disputes. Citing SC precedents, Justice Shroti affirmed that evidence obtained even by unlawful means can still be accepted, provided it is relevant and authentic. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He upheld the family court's April 2023 order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited, stating that the test of admissibility is relevance, not the means of collection. The court also concluded that in cases involving conflict between two rights under Article 21 - the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial - the latter must prevail if public justice is at stake. Additionally, the court invoked section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits disclosure of marital communications, but makes an explicit exception for suits between spouses, such as divorce proceedings.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats can be used as evidence in divorce case even if obtained sans consent: HC
Bhopal: In a ruling that could shape how digital evidence is treated in matrimonial disputes, Madhya Pradesh high court has upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats between spouses, even if obtained without consent. Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions — particularly if it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which too is a constitutional guarantee, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed in a recent order. The petition was filed by a woman challenging a family court order that allowed her estranged husband to exhibit private chats as evidence in an ongoing divorce case. The couple married on Dec 1, 2016, and have a seven-year-old daughter. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and adultery. To substantiate his claims, he relied on WhatsApp conversations that were allegedly forwarded to his phone via an app secretly installed on his wife's mobile device. These messages allegedly indicated an extramarital relationship. The wife filed a separate application seeking restitution of conjugal rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo When the husband sought to introduce the WhatsApp chats as evidence during trial, the wife objected on the grounds that the material had been obtained illegally, in violation of her Fundamental Right to privacy. Her counsel argued that the husband's method to obtain the chats breached Information Technology Act. However, HC rejected these arguments, taking the view that under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, courts have the liberty to accept any evidence — regardless of admissibility under Indian Evidence Act — if it aids in the effective resolution of disputes. Justice Shroti emphasized that family courts operate under a special statutory framework designed to simplify rules of evidence in sensitive matrimonial matters. According to the court, this broad power exists specifically because many family-related disputes concern private and intimate details that often cannot be captured through conventional legal mechanisms. Citing Supreme Court precedents, Justice Shroti affirmed that evidence obtained even by unlawful means can still be accepted, provided it is relevant and authentic. The court also referred to the landmark privacy judgment in K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) case, clarifying that the right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and must be weighed against other constitutional rights such as the right to a fair trial. The court concluded that in cases involving conflict between two rights under Article 21 — the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial — the latter must prevail if public justice is at stake. In this context, the court held that excluding WhatsApp chats solely on grounds of privacy would frustrate the very object of Section 14 of Family Courts Act. The court invoked Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits disclosure of marital communications, but makes an explicit exception for suits between spouses, such as divorce proceedings. Justice Shroti stressed that courts retain full discretion to discard evidence during final adjudication if it is found unreliable or unauthenticated. He said that family courts exercise this wide discretion with caution. To prevent misuse, the court suggested safeguards such as strict verification of authenticity, use of in-camera proceedings where necessary, and maintaining decorum and propriety during trial. Concluding the judgment, the court upheld the family court's April 2023 order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited. Justice Shroti stated unequivocally that the test of admissibility is relevance, not the means of collection, and that the objectives of the Family Courts Act would be undermined if relevance were to be subordinated to privacy.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Fake journalist held for 7L extortion in scrap theft case
Vadodara: Posing as a journalist to play saviour in a scrap theft case, a man ended up on the wrong side of the law himself. The city crime branch on Thursday arrested Ashok Dubey, who allegedly extorted Rs 7 lakh from a man by threatening to expose him in connection with a stolen scrap consignment in the Manjalpur area. According to police, Dubey and his accomplices intercepted a minitruck transporting stolen scrap from a company in Makarpura GIDC. The vehicle, owned and driven by Vijendra Rajbhar, was allegedly part of a theft operation masterminded by Prakash Parmar. The group allegedly forced Rajbhar to contact Parmar and directed him to meet Dubey, who demanded Rs 10 lakh, claiming to be a journalist capable of "handling" the situation. Dubey warned Parmar of legal trouble even if the stolen material was surrendered to police. Panicked, Rajbhar drove the truck to the Manjalpur police station with the stolen scrap, but Dubey's group continued to pressure Parmar, eventually settling the deal at Rs 7 lakh. Parmar borrowed the money and handed it over — only to file an extortion complaint on June 10. Acting on the complaint, the crime branch used human and technical intelligence to track and arrest Dubey. Police said he had previously been booked for attempted robbery and under the Arms Act.
