‘Shooting Accused's Legs Has Become Routine’: Allahabad HC Seeks Explanation from UP DGP

Observing that police firing at the legs of accused persons has “seemingly become a routine feature,” the Allahabad High Court has questioned the conduct of the Uttar Pradesh Police after finding repeated non-compliance with Supreme Court safeguards in encounter cases involving grievous injuries.

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the observation while hearing a bail application filed by one Raju alias Rajkumar, who suffered grievous gunshot injuries during an alleged police encounter in Mirzapur district. Raju is accused in a case registered under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Dealing with the matter, court found that even the basic safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court, such as recording the injured person’s statement before a Magistrate or Medical Officer and ensuring an independent investigation, were not followed by the police.

Earlier, on January 13, 2026, the high court had sought specific instructions from the State regarding compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in encounter cases, particularly whether a separate FIR had been registered in connection with the encounter and whether the injured accused’s statement had been recorded before a Magistrate or a Medical Officer.

When the matter was taken up again on January 28, the State informed the court that an FIR relating to the police encounter had been registered at Lalganj police station. However, it was admitted that the statement of the injured applicant had neither been recorded before a Magistrate nor before a Medical Officer. Court was also informed that although a Sub-Inspector was initially shown as the investigating officer in the encounter FIR, an Inspector was later appointed.

Court noted that as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) case, an encounter resulting in death or grievous injury must be followed by an independent investigation, preferably by the CID or by police from another police station, and in any event by an officer senior in rank to the head of the police party involved. Recording the injured person’s statement with a certificate of medical fitness was also held to be mandatory.

Court held that these requirements were clearly not met in the present case. The court observed that despite sustaining grievous injuries in the encounter, the applicant’s statement was never recorded, and the investigation was not initially entrusted to a sufficiently senior officer.

Court further noted that similar lapses had come to its notice in other bail applications listed the same day. In one such matter, the officer who led the police party had himself stated that the bullet fired by him hit the accused, yet no FIR had been registered in respect of the encounter, nor was any investigation conducted. Even in that case, the injured person’s statement had not been recorded before a Magistrate or Medical Officer.

Expressing concern, court observed that it was frequently confronted with cases where police resorted to firing even in matters involving relatively minor offences, projecting such incidents as encounters while disregarding the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging that police personnel have a right of private defence, court stressed that once death or grievous injury occurs, strict adherence to the prescribed procedure is non-negotiable.

"Such conduct (unnecessarily firing during an encounter) is wholly impermissible, as the power to punish lies exclusively within the domain of the Courts and not with the police. India being a democratic State governed by the rule of law, the functions of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary are distinct and well defined, and any encroachment by the police into the judicial domain cannot be countenanced," court said.

In view of the recurring non-compliance, court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to appear before it through video conferencing at 10 am on January 30, 2026 (today), to explain whether any oral or written directions existed regarding firing upon accused persons during encounters and to address compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.

The matter has been directed to be listed again on that date along with the connected bail applications.

Case Title: Raju Alias Rajkumar vs. State of UP

Order Date: January 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal