The High Court of Chhattisgarh on October 14, 2025, dismissed a writ petition seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the death of Katha Ramchandra Reddy, an alleged Maoist leader, in what the petitioner claimed was a “fake encounter.” A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru concluded that the petition was based on “mere assumption” and failed to present substantial evidence to warrant an independent probe.
The Court held that the petitioner had “utterly failed to make out any case for interference,” and accordingly dismissed the petition as “devoid of merit.”
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Raja Chandra, the son of the deceased Katha Ramchandra Reddy (also known as Vikalp, Raju Dada, and other aliases), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner stated that his father and a family friend, Kadari Satyanarayana Reddy (@ Kosa Dada), were killed by police in a fake encounter on September 22, 2025.
According to the petitioner, his apprehension that his father was executed in a “cold blooded manner” stemmed from several suspicious circumstances. He pointed out that despite an alleged exchange of fire between hundreds of Maoists and security forces, only two individuals—both high-ranking members of the Central Committee of Maoists—were killed, with no casualties or injuries reported among the security forces.
The timing of the incident was also questioned, as it occurred just two days after a press release, allegedly issued by the deceased, had refuted earlier reports that the Maoists intended to surrender. The petitioner argued this suggested the deceased were “nabbed alive by the Police with the help of their own party members,” tortured, and subsequently killed.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Mr. Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner’s mother, upon viewing the deceased’s body, observed injuries inconsistent with an encounter. These included missing skin on an eyelid, peeling and seemingly burnt skin on the chest, bruises on the stomach, and “stab injuries on the other parts of the body which looked like caused by sharp weapons,” with no visible bullet wounds.
Mr. Gonsalves contended that the authorities failed to follow the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Maharashtra. He highlighted that the videography of the postmortem, which lasted one and a half hours, was only ten minutes long. Furthermore, he alleged that crucial evidence such as photographs of the body, a sketch of the incident scene, and details of retrieved cartridges were not provided. The petitioner sought the registration of an FIR against the security forces and a court-monitored investigation by an SIT composed of officers from outside Chhattisgarh, along with exemplary monetary compensation.
Arguments of the State
Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, countered that the encounter was genuine. He submitted that on September 22, 2025, following “specific intelligence input,” a police party engaged with 20-25 Naxalites in the Abujhmad area. After the encounter, the bodies of two male Maoists were recovered along with an AK-47 rifle, an INSAS rifle, and other weapons. An FIR (Crime No. 16/2025) was registered at Police Station Orchha.
The Advocate General asserted that all procedural guidelines established by the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) were followed. The State provided a detailed timeline of actions taken, including:
- Informing the NHRC promptly.
- Conducting an inquest in the presence of an Executive Magistrate.
- Performing a postmortem by a team of doctors, which was videographed.
- Initiating a Magisterial Inquiry.
- Sending seized weapons for ballistic analysis.
The State submitted that the SFSL report confirmed the seized weapons were in active condition and had been recently fired. It also noted that “firing discharge residue” was found on the hands of the deceased. The government further detailed the deceased’s extensive criminal history, citing 29 cases in Chhattisgarh, 6 in Maharashtra, and 2 in Telangana. Regarding the puncture wounds, the State argued such injuries were possible in the “dense forest where the terrain is such that a person can sustain various kinds of injuries.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, after perusing the pleadings and hearing the arguments, concluded that the petitioner’s allegations were not substantiated by any material on record. The judgment stated, “it is the mere assumption of the petitioner and his mother that the deceased was subjected to torture by the Police/security personnel and thereafter executed in a cold blooded manner and a fake story of encounter has been concocted.”
The Bench found that the State had provided a detailed account of its adherence to the PUCL and NHRC guidelines. It rejected the petitioner’s suspicion arising from the lack of police casualties, observing: “Encounters in Naxal-dominated zones are military-style anti-insurgency operations. It is not uncommon for few deaths or one-sided casualties due to surprise or superior tactical position. Therefore, the absence of police casualties cannot by itself imply falsity.”
The Court also noted that the deceased had been out of touch with his family since 2007 and had a significant criminal record, suggesting active involvement in Naxal activities. On the specific injuries, the Court explained that the harsh terrain of dense forests could lead to various wounds and that “when an allegation of torture by the security personnel is made by the petitioner, the same needs to be substantiated, which is totally missing in this case.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases like Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated that transferring an investigation to an independent agency is an “extra-ordinary power” to be exercised “sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations.”
The Court ultimately held that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant such an intervention, stating that “routine operations conducted by security personnel in Naxal-affected areas aimed at maintaining law and order and combating insurgency fall within the domain of the State Police forces.”
With these observations, the petition was dismissed.
