The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, presided over by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, stayed the operation of a trial court order rejecting a discharge application in an alleged police encounter case, while ordering an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the authenticity of the FIR and the police actions. Hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of discharge under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the High Court held that the prosecution narrative contained glaring improbabilities, raised serious doubts regarding a staged encounter, and prima facie failed to adhere to mandatory Supreme Court guidelines on encounter investigations.
Case Background
The revisionist, Chotkau alias Allauddin, had previously been convicted and sentenced to death in a 2012 rape and murder case of a minor child. However, on September 28, 2022, the Supreme Court set aside his conviction and acquitted him. In that judgment, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 742, the Apex Court severely criticized the prosecution and investigation, observing:
“By not conducting the investigation properly, the prosecution has done injustice to the family of the victim. By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant. Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime.”
On May 9, 2025, FIR No. 110 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti, alleging that one Shafeeq and two unnamed accomplices had abducted a 7-year-old girl. The complainant caught Shafeeq on the spot and handed him over to the police. Three days later, on May 12, 2025, Ashwini Kumar Dubey, Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Ikauna, registered FIR No. 113 of 2025 against Chotkau, alleging an encounter.
According to the police version, 13 police officials travelling in a single government vehicle (UP 46 G 0161) received an informer’s tip that Chotkau was fleeing to Nepal on an e-rickshaw. Joined by a 10-member SWAT team led by Officer-in-charge Nitin Yadav, a total of 23 police personnel set up an ambush near Andharpurwa bridge. The police alleged that Chotkau crashed his e-rickshaw into a tree, attempted to flee, threatened the 23-member team, and loaded a country-made pistol. Hearing the sound of a weapon being loaded in the dark, the SHO fired two shots from his 9 mm service pistol in self-defense, hitting Chotkau in both legs. While lying injured on the ground surrounded by 23 armed personnel, Chotkau allegedly confessed to kidnapping and raping the minor girl in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025.
Procedural History and Arguments
Following the encounter, a charge-sheet was submitted against Chotkau under Section 109 BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act. Chotkau filed an application seeking discharge, which was initially rejected by the Sessions Judge, Shravasti on July 28, 2025.
Chotkau challenged this before the High Court, and on March 26, 2026, a Coordinate Bench set aside the trial court’s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision with directions to provide adequate legal aid to the revisionist.
However, on July 2, 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Amit Kumar Prajapati again rejected the discharge application, reasoning that innocence could not be accepted on probabilities without evidence and concluding that because charges had already been framed on July 28, 2025, there was no need to frame charges again.
Chotkau, represented by advocates Nadeem Murtaza, Utkarsh Srivastava, Prashast Puri, Niharika Srivastava, and Parth Anand, challenged the July 2, 2026 order before the High Court. They contended that the trial court failed to comprehend that setting aside the July 28, 2025 order in its entirety meant the framing of charges was also set aside.
The State, represented by G.D. Bhatt, A.G.A.-I, along with SHO Ashwini Kumar Dubey (who appeared in person), defended the trial court’s order and the police version of events.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the prosecution’s case against established principles for framing charges, the High Court cited Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, recalling the principle that:
“That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.”
The Court also referenced Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368 to reiterate that trial courts must evaluate broad probabilities rather than accepting prosecution statements as absolute truth if they defy common sense.
Upon analyzing the material, the High Court highlighted several glaring inconsistencies:
- Vehicle Capacity and Team Split: The FIR asserted that 13 police officials were moving in a single government patrolling vehicle (UP 46 G 0161). The Court noted this was physically and legally improbable unless officers were sitting on the roof. Furthermore, the assertion that these 13 officers split into three teams moving along separate routes on foot during the night appeared impossible unless the vehicle itself was split.
- Disproportionate Encounter: The Court found it unbelievable that a team of 23 armed police personnel, including a 10-member specialized SWAT team, could be challenged or threatened by a single man on an e-rickshaw armed with a country-made firearm and only two cartridges.
- Questionable Firing and Marksmanship: SHO Ashwini Kumar Dubey claimed he fired two shots from a distance of 15 meters in self-defense upon merely hearing the sound of a weapon being loaded, with both shots hitting Chotkau in both legs. When questioned by the Court, the SHO claimed it was a moonlit night. However, when confronted with the medico-legal report showing 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wounds, the SHO claimed a 9 mm bullet has a narrower tip that can cause a 5 mm wound—an explanation the Court noted “does not appeal to reason.”
- Pattern of Police Encounters: Referring to widespread police practice, the High Court remarked:
“The Court is observing 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.”
- Violation of Established Guidelines: The Court noted that mandatory procedures laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635 and reinforced by the High Court in Raju v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC OnLine All 144) regarding police encounter investigations were not followed. Reaffirming Raju v. State of U.P., the Court highlighted:
“The power to punish lies exclusively within the domain of the Courts and not with the police.”
- Motive and Unjust Rewards: The Court took note that all 23 police personnel involved in the incident were rewarded for their “good work,” which included extracting a confession for an offense in which the revisionist had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the apparent cause of police annoyance against Chotkau might be the strict observations previously made against the prosecution by the Apex Court.
Decision of the Court
Holding that the facts give rise to a reasonable apprehension of a false narration and staged encounter, the High Court stayed the operation and implementation of the trial court’s order dated July 2, 2026.
The Court directed the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to nominate an officer to conduct an independent inquiry into the correctness of the allegations in FIR No. 113 of 2025. The Court specifically ordered that during the inquiry:
“the shooting capacity of the complainant SHO Ashwini Kumar Dubey (PNO 880530329) will also be assessed to examine whether he is capable of aiming and shooting from a distance of 15 meters with his 9 mm service pistol, in the night, while aiming merely by hearing the sound of loading of a weapon.”
The CBI has been directed to submit its inquiry report within three months. The State was granted three months to file a counter-affidavit, with one week thereafter for a rejoinder. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 23, 2026.
Case Title: Chotkau Alias Allauddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2026
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Date: August 13, 2026
