The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the growing tendency of police to shoot accused persons in the name of encounters, observing that firing to “teach a lesson” is against the rule of law. Emphasising the constitutional principles, the Court remarked that,
“India is a democratic country. It has to be run as per the ethos and directions of the Constitution of India which clearly distinguishes role of the legislature, executive and judiciary.”
The Court underscored that no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Referring to international human rights standards, the Court noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has laid down general principles for the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions.
These principles are intended to ensure independence in the investigation of police killings and to prevent abuse, corruption, ineffectiveness and negligence during such investigations.
By examining the police encounters against established legal principles, the Court categorically held that,
“Such act is not permissible in the eyes of law as the power of punishment to accused is within the domain of judiciary and not in the domain of police.”
Taking a stern view of violations of Supreme Court guidelines, the Court further noted that,
“In the garb of appreciation or for other extraneous purposes, police officers cannot be allowed to take the function of judiciary to punish a criminal by unnecessary firing and causing injuries even on non-vital part.”
These observations were made by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal while granting conditional bail to Raju alias Rajkumar in a case registered under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) of the BNS at Kotwali Dehat Police Station in the district of Mirzapur.
After examining the FIR, the Court found that the case arose from an alleged police encounter in which the accused had sustained serious firearm injuries. The Court had earlier sought clarification from the State authorities as to whether a separate FIR had been registered in connection with the encounter and whether the statement of the injured accused had been recorded before a Magistrate or a Medical Officer.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court reiterated that in cases of death or grievous injury in police encounters, immediate registration of an FIR, an independent investigation by a senior officer, and recording of the injured person’s statement are mandatory.
According to the Court these directions, constitute the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution and must be strictly followed. However, during the hearing it emerged that although a separate FIR had been registered in the present case, the injured accused’s statement was neither recorded before a Magistrate nor by any Medical Officer, and the initial investigation was conducted by an officer not in conformity with the above guidelines of Supreme Court .
Expressing serious concern over this irresponsible approach of the police administration, the Court ruled that,
“This Court came across in several cases which prima facie shows that some police officers, who are part of police team involved in police encounter, just to get out of turn promotion or appreciation from the higher authority or to get fame in social media unnecessarily used fire arm and caused fire arm injury on the leg of the accused just below the knee. Such act is not permissible in the eyes of law as the power of punishment to accused is within the domain of judiciary and not in the domain of police.”
The situation was found to be even more alarming in other connected bail matters, where the police officer leading the encounter himself admitted that his bullet had hit the accused. Despite this admission, neither an FIR was registered nor any investigation carried out.
Taking note of these grave lapses, the High Court had, in the previous hearing on January 28, summoned the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, through video conferencing.
In compliance of the Court’s order, both officers appeared before the Court on January 30 and informed that circulars had earlier been issued to ensure compliance with the guidelines of Supreme Court. However, the Court made it clear that these directions were not being followed at the ground level. The officers assured the Court that strict compliance would be ensured in future and that stringent action would be taken against erring police personnel.
The Court also warned that if violations of Supreme Court directions are found in police encounter cases in any district in future, not only the officer leading the encounter but also the district police chief would be liable to face contempt proceedings.
Considering the facts of the case, the period of custody undergone by the accused, filing of the charge-sheet and recent Supreme Court rulings on bail, the High Court granted conditional bail to the applicant.
The Court also directed that a certified copy of the order be circulated to all District Judges in the State and also issued instructions for improving video conferencing facilities.
Case: Raju Alias Rajkumar vs State of U.P.
Date of Order: 30.01.2026
See Order: Raju Alias Rajkumar vs State of U.P.
