The Allahabad High Court has issued stringent guidelines regarding police encounters resulting in grievous injuries, ruling that non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate in the PUCL case will hold District Police Chiefs (SP/SSP/Commissionerate Police) liable for contempt of court.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this significant order while granting bail to one Raju Alias Rajkumar, who had sustained grievous injuries in a police encounter. The Court observed that despite repeated circulars, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs. State of Maharashtra were not being substantially complied with.
Background
The instant bail application was filed by Raju Alias Rajkumar, seeking release in Case Crime No. 344 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.
Upon perusing the FIR, the Court noted that the matter pertained to a police encounter where the applicant sustained grievous injuries. In an earlier order dated January 28, 2026, the Court had directed the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) to seek instructions on whether the PUCL guidelines were followed—specifically, whether a separate FIR was registered regarding the encounter and if the injured person’s statement was recorded by a Magistrate or Medical Officer.
The State informed the Court that while an FIR for the encounter was registered, the statement of the injured had neither been recorded before a Magistrate nor a Medical Officer. Furthermore, the investigation was initially handed over to a Sub-Inspector, contrary to the requirement that it be conducted by a senior officer.
Appearance of Top Officials
Taking a serious view of the non-compliance, the Court had summoned the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), U.P., and the Director General of Police (DGP), U.P., via video conferencing.
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Additional Home Secretary, and Mr. Rajeev Krishna, DGP, U.P., appeared before the Court. They admitted that despite DGP circulars issued on 01.08.2017 and 11.10.2024, the directions of the Apex Court in the PUCL case were not being substantially complied with by several police officers. Both officers assured the Court that fresh directions would be issued for strict compliance and negligent officers would be dealt with strictly.
Court’s Observations
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the police practice of firing at the legs of accused persons to “teach a lesson.” Justice Deshwal observed:
“This Court has noticed 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. 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 emphasized that in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, the police cannot encroach into the judicial domain. The Court further remarked that such acts often appear to be attempts to attract the attention of higher officers or create public sympathy.
New Guidelines Issued
Reiterating that the directions in PUCL are the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution, the High Court issued the following guidelines for cases where an accused receives grievous injuries in a police encounter:
- Mandatory FIR: If an encounter takes place resulting in grievous injury, an FIR must be registered by the head of the police party involved.
- Independent Investigation: The investigation must be conducted by the CBCID or a police team from another police station under the supervision of a senior police officer (at least one level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter).
- Recording of Statement: The injured criminal/victim must be provided medical aid, and their statement must be recorded either by a Magistrate or a Medical Officer with a certificate of fitness.
- No Immediate Awards: Out-of-turn promotions or gallantry awards shall not be given soon after the occurrence. Rewards should only be recommended after the gallantry is established beyond doubt by a constituted committee.
- Judicial Oversight: A report of the investigation must be sent to the competent court.
- Complaint Mechanism: If the family of the injured finds that the procedure has not been followed, they may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction, who shall redress the grievance.
Liability of District Police Chiefs
The Court issued a stern warning regarding accountability. It directed that if any police officer is found to have violated these guidelines, “not only the persons who was leading the police team involved in police encounter but District Police Chief whether SP/SSP/Commissionerate Police would be liable for contempt of court apart from disciplinary proceedings instituted by the police department.”
The Court also empowered Sessions Judges to refer appropriate cases to the High Court for the initiation of contempt proceedings against District Police Chiefs where flagrant violations are reported.
Decision
On the merits of the bail application, the counsel for the applicant submitted that Raju was not named in the FIR and was falsely implicated based on the recovery of certain silver articles. It was argued that the provisions of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the seizure of electronic evidence were not followed.
Considering the facts, the overcrowded jails, and the judgment of the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan vs. CBI, the Court granted bail to the applicant, Raju Alias Rajkumar, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
The Registrar General was directed to circulate the order to all District Judges of U.P.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Raju Alias Rajkumar vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45637 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- Counsel for Applicant: Kusum Mishra
- Counsel for State: G.A., Anoop Trivedi (AAG), Pankaj Saxena, D.P.S. Chauhan (A.G.A.)
