Vikas Dubey is dead. On Thursday, when he was captured in Ujjain, this paper contended that his capture must check the start — not the end — of the tale about the nexus among governmental issues and wrongdoing in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and a messed up authoritative and police framework. However, there seem to have been powers which didn’t need that story told. On Friday morning, in exceptionally strange conditions, Dubey kicked the bucket, thus did the story he may have told.Two letter-appeal routed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court addresses the way wherein Uttar Pradesh hoodlum Vikas Dubey was killed in an asserted “police-encounter.”The first letter, composed by Supreme Court Advocate Pawan Prakash Pathak and law understudy Abhijeet Kumar Pandey, looks for an enquiry by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the killing.

Quoting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (forestalling the hardship of life and freedom spare by built up lawful methodology), the solicitors clarify that the State is answerable for attempting a blamed individual as per criminal laws before denying him, “of his life.” They reinforce their entries with the Supreme Court’s profession in Prakash Kadam v Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta , wherein it was held that “Trigger glad police officers who figure they can slaughter individuals for the sake of ‘experience’ and pull off it should realise that the hangman’s tree anticipate them.”The letter closes with a petition looking for a CBI or SIT investigation into Dubey’s violations just as the affirmed “experience” that murdered him.

Another request has been moved by Advocates Bhavya Sahai and Devesh Saxena, two legal counsellors rehearsing in the Allahabad High Court, looking for a legal test into Dubey’s passing.
Portraying the police’s rendition of his passing as “anecdotal and fairly copied from some Bollywood Movie content”, they look for a Judicial Probe of the criminal’s demise managed by a sitting Judge of the Allahabad Court.

Alluding to different examples of police mercilessness, including the ongoing Sathankulam custodial passings, the applicants pronounce that by their appeal they try to advocate the “Rule of law in State.”

While conceding the presence of “feared lawbreakers” in the public eye, the candidates assert, be that as it may, that “experiences” can never be a choice in acting against people blamed for a wrongdoing. In an acculturated society, this procedure is attempted, not on the grounds that the blameworthy is ventured to be guiltless until sentenced, but since this is the best way to continue the authenticity of the framework and forestall discretionary exercise of intensity. Indeed, even Ajmal Kasab, discovered in the act in the 26/11 assaults, got a preliminary.

In UP, there gives off an impression of being where this procedure is, regularly, not followed.