ISSUE NO 1. WHETHER THE KILLING WAS A FAKE ENCOUNTER?

THE KILLING WAS FAKE ENCOUNTER

It is contended that the extra judicial killing of Vikas Tyagi was illegal and fake encounter as
evident from the facts of the case. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court

1. That there were a series of alleged encounters, specifically two encounters on 3 rd July,
one on 8th July, and two more on 9th July individually at different places, of the associates
of Vikas Tyagi which all happened dramatically in a quite suspicious way.

2. That it was after these encounters, Vikas Tyagi apprehending the same fate awaiting him,
deliberately chose to publicly surrender and make his arrest at a popular temple of
Mahabaleshwar of Maha Pradesh, declaring his clear identity on record to the media and
police present there.

3. His arrest was not followed by the mandatory legal procedures. Neither the transit
remand was sought nor was the local magistrate informed which indicates the ill intent of
the UP STF and even if the remand was sought why were they so negligent. The flipping
of the car was staged, where after he allegedly tried to escape snatching the gun*(which
must be attached to the belt with a lanyard and paracord in the waist) from STF
personnels who outnumbered him, despite knowing the very recent past record of such
encounters of his associates, and given the specialization of the STF. He had an
‘exchange of fire’ with the team and was killed in an exercise of self-defence 12 by the UP
STF, a very characterizing stage in roughly every fake encounter.

4. More than this, if he was to ultimately flee ‘why did he chose to such an easy and
planned formal arrest declaring his identity to the media’?, was he not aware of the fact
that he was more safe in formal custody with legal reliefs available to him than being
vulnerable to fake encounter ‘behind the curtain’?. Also, if things worked he could have
used his influence for his acquittal.

5. Even if we assume he really tried to escape, why was he not hand-cuffed despite being
such a history sheeter and a hard core criminal?* 34; why was he not shot at his non-vital
parts so as to just restrict his movement and should have not been shot deadly?5

1
Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. SC/0371/2011
2
Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 290
3
Premshankar Shukla v. Delhi administration (1980)
4
Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam(1995)
5
Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 109
 6. Also the said criminal had a bold political background with behind curtain political nexus
with reputed politicians and the political parties with potential secrets, which indicates
the politically motivated killing of the criminal who in either case of being left alive for
interrogation would have been disastrous for the reputation of the leaders and the parties.
7. Things were going so dramatic that the conjectures were boldly in circulations on the
social media about this precedented ‘so called encounter’; including even filing of the
petitions in the court for protection of Vikas Tyagi.

8. All of the above submissions pose serious questions upon the character and the conduct
of the State and the system sufficiently defying the legality of the said encounter.
Therefore the petitioner contend vehemently that the said encounter is quite suspicious
and has crystal clear character of a fabricated staged encounter, which needs an
independent and impartial investigation6. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that
there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen of life, except in
accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody. 7 The Fake encounters by the
police are nothing but cold blooded murders, and those committing them must be given
death sentence, treating them in the category of ‘the rarest of the rare case’. 8 Encounters
do not have any place in the criminal justice system…they amount to state sponsored
terrorism.9 This is very disgusting and potentially dangerous to the civilized society
where the due process of law is a cherished belief, but comically, let alone ‘the due
process of law’ even ‘the procedure established by law’ could not be observed. Be it the
separation of power, the principle of constitutional democracy, the rule of law, the
principle of natural justice or the basic human right, they have all been jeopardized and
put at stake. The police have done what it should have not done, flouting the recently
dictated 16 guidelines of the hon’ble court in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra 10 now it is
time for judiciary to act.

6
Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
7
Neelabati Bahera Vs. State of Orissa [1993 (2) SCC, 746]
8
Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta
9
Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand
10
2014 10 SCC 635
ISSUE NO 1. WHETHER THE KILLING WAS A FAKE ENCOUNTER ?

THE KILLING WAS NOT FAKE ENCOUNTER

It is contended by the respondent state that the extra-judicial killing of the said criminal was a
genuine encounter with no compromise with the law of the land. It is humbly submitted before
this honourable court that

1. The Vikas Tyagi was arrested and not surrendered from the premise of the
Mahabaleshwar temple in Unnain, after being identified by the authorities from where he
was taken into custody by the MP police, whereafter completion of basic interrogation
he was handed over to the UP police which was intended to bring and report him at
Kanpur session court Magistrate within 24hrs deadline expiring at 10 AM on July 10,
without any delay.

2. In the meanwhile, while heading to the court at Kanpur the vehicle overturned on the wet
highway avoiding the cattle herds midway; after which Vikas tried to escape the cops
who were injured and unconscious, hurling down the bullets upon who was neutralized
after the accompanying vehicles’ cops encountered him in self-defence.

3. He was not handcuffed for the reason there was sufficient security ensured with
numerous STF personnels outnumbering him and multiple vehicles to escort him.

4. His arrest and custodial transition was followed in accordance with the law without
undermining any mandatory legal procedure as prescribed by the Hon’ble court which
was viable to the given situation on ground, with clear cut intent of the UP STF to
produce Vikas to the court within 24 hrs. of his arrest.

5. The arrestee was of desperate behaviour and violent, which is evident from his past
record, thereby entering into an exchange of face to face fire is under no question to
believe…and neither he nor his bullets listened to the numerous warnings of the Cops
making his execution inevitable in furtherance of self defence.

6. Answering the question of conjectures/apprehension of such ‘encounter’ and

speculations about this politically abandoned criminal having ‘secrets’ which could
have exposed the nexus between him and the police/ politicians, is however a matter of
human psyche behaviour, with it being nothing more than a fertile imagination of extra-
sensitive people or the advisors and defenders of the criminals, than reality.

7. All of the above submissions aims at satisfying the Hon’ble court that the true facts as
reflected hereabove clarifies that the incident in question is in no way fit to be termed as
‘Fake Encounter’ tarnishing the image and repute of the UP police and the Govt.,
looking at the incident in totality.