Orders CBI Probe Into Police Encounter of Chhotkau, Finds FIR False
The has ordered a probe into a police encounter where accused Chhotkau @ Allauddin was shot in both legs, branding the police version as false and marred by .
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, while hearing a against the rejection of Chhotkau's , stayed the trial and directed the CBI to conduct an independent inquiry into the circumstances leading to the FIR under and .
A Troubling Backdrop
Chhotkau had only recently been acquitted by the in a separate rape and murder case, with the apex court severely criticizing the prosecution for a flawed investigation. In a judgment reported in , the had set aside his conviction and death sentence, noting that the appellant was so poor he could not afford a lawyer and the evidence did not withstand scrutiny.
Within weeks, on , the Station House Officer (SHO) of Ikauna police station, Ashwini Kumar Dubey, lodged an FIR alleging that Chhotkau, whose name emerged during investigation of a separate kidnapping case, was intercepted by a massive police team and opened fire, leading to the police firing back and injuring him. The High Court found the narrative riddled with inconsistencies that "."
Discrepancies That Stood Out
The court pointed to several absurdities in the police account. A team of 13 police personnel—including the SHO, five sub-inspectors, one head constable, and six constables—claimed to be traveling in a single government vehicle (UP 46 G 0161), a logistical impossibility. The FIR also alleged that a 10-member SWAT team was called for reinforcement, yet the entire posse of 23 armed officers was supposedly intimidated by a single accused carrying a katta (country-made pistol) with just two cartridges.
"It is strange that a police team of 13 persons and a SWAT team of 10 persons got frightened and called for further reinforcement to tackle a person carrying a country made pistol and merely two cartridges,"
Justice Vidyarthi observed, adding that "the Court has serious apprehensions regarding the correctness of the narration made in the FIR and the manner of investigation conducted by the police.
, it appears that the narration is false."
The court also questioned the police's claim that Chhotkau, after being shot in both legs and surrounded by 23 officers, voluntarily confessed to the kidnapping and rape of a seven-year-old girl—an offence not even alleged in the original FIR.
"There is no allegation in FIR No. 110 of 2025 that the victim had been raped,"
the court noted, calling the confession
fabricated.
A Test of Marksmanship
A particularly striking aspect of the order was the court's examination of the SHO's claim that he fired two shots from a 9mm service pistol at a distance of 15 meters in the dark, guided only by the sound of the accused loading his weapon. Justice Vidyarthi directed the CBI to assess the shooting capacity of the SHO, observing that the medico-legal report mentioned lacerated wounds of 0.5x0.5 cm, which seemed inconsistent with a 9mm bullet.
The court further noted that no police officer suffered any injury, and that all 23 personnel involved in the encounter had been rewarded, raising suspicions about the motive behind the encounter. The court remarked that the "apparent cause of annoyance" may have been the 's criticism of the prosecution in the earlier case.
Violation of Mandated Procedures
The judgment emphasized that the guidelines laid down by the in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 10 SCC 635, which mandate independent investigation, videography of post-mortems, and no out-of-turn rewards, had not been followed. The court also cited a recent coordinate bench decision in decrying the "rising trend" of police encounters where officers fire at accused's legs to gain publicity or promotions.
The Order
Finding a
case of a
, the High Court set aside the trial court's rejection of the
and stayed further proceedings. It directed the CBI to
"conduct a thorough investigation into the correctness of the allegations"
in FIR No. 113 of 2025 and submit a report within three months. The matter is now listed for further hearing on
.