Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over repeated and blatant non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandatory guidelines governing police encounters, particularly in cases where accused persons sustain grievous injuries. The Court has summoned the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to personally explain the situation.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing a criminal bail application arising out of an alleged police encounter in Mirzapur district, observed that the police have routinely failed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra, despite the law being well settled and widely circulated.
The case relates to an FIR registered against the applicant under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in which the applicant sustained grievous gunshot injuries during a police encounter. While examining the bail plea, the Court had earlier sought instructions from the State on whether an FIR relating to the encounter had been registered and whether the injured applicant’s statement was recorded before a Magistrate or a Medical Officer, as mandated by the Supreme Court.
The State informed the Court that although an FIR had eventually been registered in respect of the encounter, the injured person’s statement was never recorded, either before a Magistrate or a Medical Officer. Further, the investigation was initially entrusted to a Sub-Inspector, contrary to the requirement that such cases be investigated by an officer senior in rank to the police personnel involved in the encounter.
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court’s directions in PUCL and the subsequent affirmation of those guidelines in Andhra Pradesh Police Officers Association v. AP Civil Liberties Committee, the High Court held that these procedural safeguards are not optional and must be strictly complied with whenever death or grievous injury occurs during police firing.
The Court made strong remarks, noting that it was increasingly encountering cases where even petty offences were being projected as police encounters, with accused persons being shot in the legs without any apparent necessity or proportionality. The Court clarified that while police officers have the right of private defence, the power to punish rests solely with the judiciary, and any attempt by the police to assume that role strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law.
The Court also took note of two other connected bail matters involving similar allegations of encounter-related injuries, where it emerged that no FIR had been registered at all in respect of the police firing. Expressing shock at the continued disregard of binding Supreme Court directions, the Court remarked that such actions appear aimed at gaining favour with superior officers or manufacturing public approval.
Finding the situation alarming, the High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to appear through video conferencing and clarify whether any oral or written instructions exist permitting police officers to fire at accused persons’ legs or otherwise, and what steps have been taken to ensure compliance with Supreme Court-mandated procedures in encounter cases.
The matter has been listed for further hearing along with connected bail applications.
Case Details:
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Date of Order: January 28, 2026
- Case Title: Raju @ Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45637 of 2025
- Advocates Appearing:
- For the Applicant: Ms. Kusum Mishra, Advocate
- For the State: Shri Pankaj Saxena, Additional Government Advocate
- Next Date of Hearing: January 30, 2026
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
