Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: While considering a bail application filed by the applicant-accused for offences under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 317(2) of the Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) where he sustained grievous injuries during police encounter, a Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., held that the practice of police encounters, particularly firing at the legs of accused persons, has seemingly become a routine feature.
The present case pertained to a police encounter in which the accused sustained grievous injuries. The counsel for opposite party produced instructions indicating that an FIR in respect of the police encounter was registered at the Polce Station, however, it was admitted that the statement of the injured was neither recorded before the Magistrate nor by any Medical Officer. Further, in the FIR for the incident of police encounter, the Investigating Officer was shown as a Sub-Inspector, though it was informed that subsequently an Inspector had been appointed as the Investigating Officer in the said case.
The Court perused People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (‘PUCL case’), (2014) 10 SCC 635 and stated that in the event of a police encounter in which the accused sustains grievous injuries, an FIR must be registered immediately and the investigation should be conducted either by the Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department (‘CBCID’) or by the police of another police station, and in any case by a police officer of a rank senior to the head of the police party involved in the encounter.
The Court further stated that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in PUCL case (Supra) were not complied with in the case at hand as the police neither recorded the statement of the injured before a Medical Officer or a Magistrate, nor was the investigation of the police encounter conducted by an officer of a rank higher than the head of the police party involved in the encounter.
The Court emphasized that it is frequently confronted with cases where, even in matters involving petty offences such as theft, the police indiscriminately resort to firing by projecting the incident as a police encounter, without following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case (supra). Further, the Court stated that it recognizes that police personnel also have the right of private defense and may use force in appropriate circumstances, however it is well settled that where death occurs or grievous injuries are caused to the accused, the procedure mandated by the PUCL case (supra) must be strictly followed.
Referring to two other listed cases, the Court stressed that they also pertained to police encounters in which the applicants sustained grievous injuries where no investigation was conducted since no FIR was registered.
Further, the Court observed that “the practice of police encounters, particularly firing at the legs of accused persons, has seemingly become a routine feature, ostensibly to please superior officers or to teach the accused a so-called lesson by way of punishment.” The Court held that such conduct is wholly impermissible, as the power to punish lies exclusively within the domain of the Courts and not with the police.
The Court stated that “India being a democratic State governed by the rule of law, the functions of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary are distinct and well defined, and any encroachment by the police into the judicial domain cannot be countenanced.” The Court further stated that neither has the State Government issued any oral or written direction to police officers to teach a lesson to accused persons by firing at their legs, even in cases involving petty offences, nor can such acts be justified on that basis. It appears that certain police officers may be misusing their authority to attract the attention of higher officers or to create an impression of public sympathy by portraying incidents as police encounters involving firing upon the accused.
The Court stated that in the present case, “no police officer has sustained any injury, which further calls into question the necessity and proportionality of the use of firearms in the alleged encounters.” Thus, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Uttar Pradesh as well as the Director General of Police Uttar Pradesh to appear through video conferencing and inform the Court whether any oral or written directions have been issued to police officers to fire upon accused persons in the legs or otherwise in the name of a police encounter or to ensure compliance with the directions of the PUCL case (supra) regarding registration of FIR, recording of statements of injured persons, and investigation by officers senior in rank to the head of the police party in cases resulting in death or grievous injury during police encounters.
[Raju alias Rajkumar v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45637 of 2025, decided on 28-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Kusum Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: G.A.