Vikas Dubey encounter case: Counter-affidavit alleging institutional bias in appointment of SIT filed in SC

In a development to the Vikas Dubey encounter case, a counter-affidavit was on Saturday filed in the Supreme Court by one of the petitioners. The petitioner, Anoop Prakash Awasthi, in his counter-affidavit, stated that there is an illegality in the constitution of the Judicial Inquiry Commission for the matter. Further, the petitioner also alleged institutional bias in the appointment of SIT.

New Delhi: A counter-affidavit was filed in the Supreme Court on Saturday demanding an independent enquiry into the Vikas Dubey encounter case, in reply to Uttar Pradesh's affidavit which was filed yesterday.

The petitioner-Anoop Prakash Awasthi-in his counter-affidavit stated that there is illegality in the constitution of Judicial Inquiry Commission for the matter.

While alleging institutional bias in the appointment of Special Investigation Team (SIT), the petitioner further stated that taking custody of Vikas Dubey without approaching magistrate for transit demand is also illegal.

"Findings and recommendation of a judicial enquiry commission are not binding upon the appointing authority and it can as well be rejected by the government of the State of UP," the petition read.

Even if UP accepts the findings it is not legally bound to take any action and therefore CBI or NIA led investigation is relevant.

Objecting the appointment of 77-year-old Shashi Kant Agarwal to investigate the matter, Awasthi said that the elderly man is not fit to carry out an investigation in such a complicated matter, moreover, he cannot be called a judge because he had resigned under controversial circumstances from Allahabad HC after which he has been practising as a senior advocate.

Adding weight to the petition, the petitioner informed the court that one of the members of SIT, Ravinder Gaur (IPS) is an accused of a fake encounter for which CBI had sought permission to charge sheet but it was not granted by the then government and presently, he has been continuing in service.

Gaur had allegedly killed a medicine dealer Mukul Gupta on 30th June 2007, and his parents were also murdered in 2014. They were pursuing the case in Allahabad HC.

"I state that such an appointment of a special team of Kanpur Police is in the conflict of the principle of natural justice," read the affidavit.

Contending that it is not an ordinary crime but a crime against enforcement agency in which "the entire system of Kanpur Police is somehow involved either as a victim or accused or an aggressor" and hence it will rule against fairness.

For no transit demand of the gangster, Awasthi said that it is clear that UP police obtained Dubey's custody from MP police directly without the required transit remand from a magistrate as mandated under section 167 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1971.

Highlighting the faults in UP government's affidavit, the petitioner said that a hardened criminal has to be handcuffed and ankle cuffed while transporting and it ks difficult to believe that Dubey snatched the pistol from a trained policeman, who has the weapon tied to his waist with a strong nylon string and fled freeing himself from the cuffs.

Adding on further he said that it is difficult to believe that Dubey "ran like Usain Bolt despite having limp caused due to steel rods in both legs and indiscriminately fired upon police party like Jason Statham and killed by police in a mission impossible series looks like a crime thriller or movie scene than a real encounter".

Stating that there is no justification in killing a person in custody by staging an almost identical film story each time, Awasthi emphasised upon the need for CBI or NIA investigation in the case.