Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 90

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Raju Alias Rajkumar - Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45637 of 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Kusum Mishra
For the Respondent: G.A.

Police encounters resulting in grievous injury necessitate strict adherence to established procedural guidelines to uphold accountability and protect constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) The Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) BNS - Police encounter - Failure to record injured statements and register FIR in police encounters leading to grievous injuries is a violation of the Supreme Court's laid down guidelines in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14).

(B) The guidelines under PUCL case are mandatory and must be followed by law enforcement agencies to ensure accountability and justice in police operations, particularly when the use of force leads to injuries. (Paras 11, 18).

(C) The Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, inclusive of human dignity, imperative for the lawful conduct of police operations. (Paras 10, 12).

Facts of the case:
The bail application arose from a police encounter, where the applicant sustained grievous injuries but no FIR was registered against the police, and investigation was not conducted by a senior officer as required.

Findings of Court:
The Court directed strict compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines regarding police encounters and emphasized the need for appropriate investigations in such incidents.

Issues: The case primarily addresses whether the police properly followed the mandated procedures in handling the aftermath of police encounters resulting in grievous injuries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that guidelines set by the Apex Court in police encounter cases are binding and non-compliance can lead to contempt proceedings against responsible officers, reinforcing that punishment lies within judicial purview.

Result: Bail granted to the applicant on specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail application context (Para 2 , 3)
2. procedural requirements for police encounters (Para 4 , 5)
3. independence and legality of police encounters (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. bail considerations and court's decision (Para 16 , 18)
5. conditions and process for granting bail (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. administrative directions following the judgment (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Kusum Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena as well as Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.344 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) BNS, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.

3. This matter was heard on 28.01.2026. On that date, following order was passed;

"1. Heard Ms. Kusum Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Upon perusal of the F.I.R., this Court found that the matter pertains to a police encounter in which the applicant sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.01.2026, this Court directed the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635 , specifically as to whether any F.I.R. has been registered in respect of the police encounter and whether the statement of the injured has been recorded before a Magistrate or any Medical Officer.

4. Today, the learned A.G.A. produced instructions indicating that an F.I.R. in respect of the police encounter has been registered as Case Crime No. 0343 of 2025 at Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur. However, it is admitted that the statement of the injured has neither been recorded before the Magistrate nor by any Medical Officer. Further, in the F.I.R. for the incident of police encounter, the Investigating Officer has been shown as a Sub-Inspector, though it has been informed that subsequently an Inspector has been appointed as the Investigating Officer in the said case.

5. From a perusal of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and another (supra), it is clear that in the event of a police encounter in which the accused sustains grievous injuries, an F.I.R. must be registered forthwith and the investigation should be conducted either by the CBCID or by the police of another police station, and in any case by a police officer of a rank senior to the head of the police party involved in the encounter. Para 31 of PUCL's case is being quoted as under;

31. In the light of the above discussion and having regard to the directions issued by the Bombay High Court, guidelines issued by NHRC, suggestions of the appellant PUCL, amicus curiae and the affidavits filed by the Union of India, the State Governments and the Union Territories, we think it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in the matters of investigating police encounters in the cases of death as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation:

31.1. Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted in some form