Sambhal Violence : Days After FIR Ordered Against Cops, High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Alleged Police Shot Him

Though the applicant's father had argued before the CJM Court that his son was a victim of unprovoked police firing, the State government argued in the HC that Alam did not receive any gunshot injury from the fire by the police personnel.

A bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, however, granted him interim anticipatory bail till February 25, 2026 and called for a counter-affidavit from the State.

It may be noted that Alam is facing an FIR under Sections 191(3) (rioting with deadly weapon), 109(1) (attempt to murder), 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), 132 (assault on public servant) of BNS.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Prabhav Srivastava submitted that Alam is innocent and expressed apprehension of arrest in the case. He argued that no offence is made out against him and that he was not named in the initial FIR.

It was also argued that the applicant himself suffered a gunshot injury in the alleged incident and underwent treatment for the same.

It was also submitted that the applicant would cooperate during the trial and would appear before the investigating agency as and when required.

On the other hand, AGA Roopak Chaubey, appearing for the State, opposed the bail application and prayed for time to file a counter affidavit.

The Court, however, granted him interim bail till February 25.

It may be noted that 7 days after the plea of the applicant's father (for lodging of an FIR against the erring cops) was allowed by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Vibhanshu Sudheer, he was transferred out from Sambhal in an administrative reshuffle involving 13 other officers.

CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer had allowed the application moved before his court under Section 173(4) BNSS by Yameen, the father of Alam.

Yameen's plea alleged that on November 24, 2024, at about 8:45 am, Alam was selling 'pape' (rusks) and biscuits on his thela near Jama Masjid, Mohalla Kot, Sambhal and that is when the named police officials suddenly started firing at the crowd with their weapons with the intention to kill.

Sambhal Circle Officer Anuj Chaudhary and Sambhal Kotwali in-charge Anuj Kumar Tomar were named in the petition.

In its 11-page order, CJM Sudheer had also observed that the police cannot invoke the “official duty” shield for criminal acts. Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings, the CJM noted that firing upon a person cannot be considered a discharge of official duties.

The Court had thus rejected the police's preliminary defence regarding the bullet bore as it noted that the police report was 'suspicious' and contradictory to the medical evidence, which explicitly noted a "Gunshot wound" and "Police firing in riot".

Finding that a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed, the Court concluded that the truth could only be unearthed through a proper investigation.