Back
Seeks Reports from UP and in Case
A Tale of Two Arrests: Conflicting Accounts Emerge
In a case that raises serious questions about police conduct, the has sought reports from senior officers of the Uttar Pradesh and after contradictory versions emerged regarding the arrest of a theft accused and his subsequent injury in an alleged police encounter.
A Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant passed the order while hearing a filed by Riya Gautam, who alleged that her husband, Awdhesh, was the victim of a “ ” staged by police authorities “to burnish their credentials.”
From Jaipur to Firozabad: The Mystery of the Accused’s Whereabouts
The case began when the petitioner complained to the that on , at around 10 PM, police personnel from in Jaipur forcibly took her husband from his workplace without any reason. She claimed she was not informed where he was being taken.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, conducted an inquiry and issued a communication stating that Awdhesh was wanted in a theft case registered at . The report confirmed that a police team from Firozabad had arrested him from Jaipur and subsequently sent him to in Firozabad. The stated they had merely provided assistance.
However, the First Information Report (FIR) in the theft case presented a starkly different account. According to the prosecution, an informer tipped off the police that Awdhesh and co-accused were near a cold storage on the road to Chittrai in Firozabad. The FIR alleged that the accused challenged the police team, attacked them with firearms, and in the ensuing encounter, Awdhesh sustained a gunshot injury.
“The is at variance with the in respect of the arrest”
The High Court took note of this contradiction, observing, “The is at variance of the in respect of the arrest of the petitioner’s husband.” While the account placed the arrest in Jaipur, the FIR claimed the accused was found and injured in Firozabad.
The petitioner’s counsel, , argued that her husband was injured in a orchestrated by the police to improve their record. He highlighted that the ’s inquiry directly contradicted the prosecution’s version.
Court Orders Personal Affidavits and Reports
To get to the bottom of the matter, the Bench directed the Additional Director General of Police, Agra Zone, to file a regarding the encounter. Simultaneously, it ordered the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, to send a detailed report concerning the incident. The court also directed that a copy of its order be communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, through the Registrar General of the .
“The Additional Director General of Police, Zone Agra shall file his in respect of the aforesaid encounter. The Commissioner of Police, Jaipur shall simultaneously send a report in respect of the said incident,” the court ordered.
What’s Next?
The matter has been listed for , for further hearing. Until then, the conflicting narratives remain unresolved. The High Court’s intervention signals that it views the discrepancies seriously and expects a transparent account from both police forces. This case could set a significant precedent for accountability in police encounters, particularly when allegations of fake encounters arise.
