150 km apart, same script: Allahabad High Court questions ‘strange coincidence’ in FIRs

Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava

‘Similar scripts’

The Allahabad High Court was hearing a plea challenging an FIR registered in Hardoi district under Sections 109(1) (attempt to murder) of BNS, 2023, Sections 3 (licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition), 25 (punishment for certain offences) of Arms Act, 1959 and certain sections of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The court noted that in the connected petition, an FIR was lodged at the Bahraich district but coincidentally, the said FIR also used a similar script.

The court noted that the FIRs, registered in different districts, Hardoi and Bahraich, over 150 kilometres apart, indicated that one of the accused was shot at by the authorities in the leg.

It found that in one case the accused was shot in his right leg, whereas in the second case the accused was shot on the right leg.

“Prima facie, both the cases fall within the ambit of there being an encounter and the accused having suffered grievous injuries,” the Allahabad High Court noted.

The bench observed that prima facie both cases fell within the ambit of police encounters involving grievous injuries, thereby attracting safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v State of Maharashtra.

Supreme Court reference

“With regard to encounters, the Supreme Court…has issued detailed guidelines, which are applicable both where the encounter has either resulted in death or grievous injuries, such encounters have been viewed suspiciously by the Supreme Court, and in order to get over the said suspicion, the said guidelines have been issued,” the Allahabad High Court said.

The high court, however, noted that the responses of the SPs concerned were silent as to whether the guidelines of the Apex Court were adhered to.

The Allahabad High Court therefore directed the superintendents of police concerned to file fresh personal affidavits responding to the incongruities as have been pointed out by the court.

“The said personal affidavits would also indicate as to whether the guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of PUCL (supra), as well as Raju alias Raj Kumar (supra) have been followed and the manner in which they have been followed,” the court added.

The court also remarked that if the safeguards were not adhered to “in letter and spirit,” the officers must explain why action should not be initiated against responsible officials.

Directions

• The court granted three weeks for filing the affidavits and warned that if they are not filed within the stipulated period, the superintendents of police of the respective districts will have to appear in person along with records to assist the court.
• The court granted the liberty to the petitioners to file their replies to the objections, if any, to the response of SP.
• The court listed the matter for May 21 for further hearing.