Allahabad High Court Doubts Narrative Of Police Encounter, Orders CBI Probe
Upasna Agrawal
25 Aug 2026 4:03 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has questioned a recurring pattern in police encounter cases where police personnel allegedly escape unhurt while a single shot fired by the police ends up hitting the accused in the knee or below.
The Court made the observation while finding serious doubts in the prosecution's account of an alleged police encounter involving an accused who was shot in both legs.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed:
"Day in and day out that whenever the police apprehend a person, it often gives rise to another FIR alleging that when the accused was apprehended, he indulged into indiscriminate firing against the police team. Normally, not even a pellet touches even the uniform of any police person and all of them escape unhurt. The police fires one shot and it hits the accused on his knee or below it."
The prosecution alleged that 13 police personnel were travelling in one government vehicle while searching for the accused in connection with a rape case, who was allegedly attempting to escape to Nepal. A 10-member SWAT team subsequently joined the operation, taking the total number of police personnel involved to 23.
The FIR claimed that the accused arrived on an e-rickshaw, attempted to flee and then opened fire at the police team. The SHO allegedly responded by firing two shots in self-defence, both of which struck the accused in his legs.
The Court found several aspects of this narrative prima facie difficult to believe. "...it could only be true if half of them were sitting on the roof top of the vehicle," it remarked.
The Court also found it difficult to accept that a 10-member SWAT team along with 13 other police personnel could not stop a person travelling on an e-rickshaw.
The FIR did not mention any other vehicle despite the claim that the police teams had split up and subsequently assembled at the alleged encounter site. The Court said this further raised serious doubts about the prosecution version.
The Court also scrutinised the circumstances in which the SHO allegedly shot the accused.
Questioned in person, the SHO stated that he had fired from a distance of approximately 15 metres on a moonlit night. The Court also confronted him with the medico-legal report, which recorded smaller wounds. The SHO stated that the tip of a 9 mm bullet was narrower and could therefore produce a smaller wound.
The Court however found the explanation unconvincing and directed that the SHO's shooting capacity be assessed to determine whether he could accurately fire a 9 mm service pistol from 15 metres at night, merely by hearing the sound of a weapon being loaded.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, who was booked for attempt to murder and other offences under the Arms Act, following the alleged encounter. He had challenged the trial court's refusal to discharge him.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's directions in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra governing police encounters resulting in death or grievous injury. These include independent investigation, preservation of forensic evidence and restrictions on instant gallantry rewards before the conduct of police officers is established.
Finding that these requirements had prima facie not been followed, the Court held that the allegations required a thorough investigation by an independent agency. It therefore directed the CBI to inquire into the correctness of the FIR and submit a report within three months.
Meanwhile, the Court has stayed the order refusing discharge and has granted the State three months to file its counter-affidavit.
The matter is next listed on November 23.
Case Title: Chotkau Alias Allauddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619
