The Allahabad High Court has ordered a CBI investigation into a disputed police encounter in Shravasti, UP, labeling the police FIR as prima facie false.
- Allahabad HC has directed the CBI to investigate the Shravasti police encounter.
- The court found the official police narrative and FIR to be 'false' and improbable.
- The probe will assess if Supreme Court guidelines for encounters were followed.
- CBI will specifically evaluate the marksmanship of the SHO involved.
In a significant move, the Allahabad High Court has ordered a thorough investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into an alleged police encounter in the Shravasti district of Uttar Pradesh. The court noted glaring improbabilities in the official version provided by the police regarding the shooting of a man named Chotkau alias Allauddin.
The court ruled that the First Information Report (FIR) filed following the encounter was, prima facie, "false" and failed to adhere to the mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding police encounters. The judicial scrutiny focuses on the highly suspicious circumstance where a massive team of 23 police personnel, including 10 specialized SWAT members, failed to intercept a suspect on an e-rickshaw carrying only a country-made pistol.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this case highlights the growing judicial scrutiny over 'encounter killings' in India. When a large-scale police operation described in an FIR contradicts common sense and tactical reality, it challenges the integrity of the entire law enforcement apparatus and the sanctity of judicial oversight.
The court's decision underscores the necessity of accountability in police actions to prevent the misuse of the 'self-defense' plea in staged encounters.
A single-judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi has directed the CBI to nominate an officer and submit a probe report within three months. A critical aspect of the investigation will be the evaluation of the marksmanship of the then-Ikauna SHO, Ashwini Kumar Dubey. The CBI must determine if it was even possible for Dubey to accurately hit the suspect from a distance of 15 meters in the dark, guided only by the sound of a weapon being loaded.
According to the police narrative, the suspect was attempting to flee to Nepal via an e-rickshaw. The SHO claimed that after the suspect threatened the team, he fired two shots in "self-defense." However, the court found the scale of the police presence versus the ease of the suspect's alleged escape to be highly inconsistent.
| Feature | Police Version | Court's Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Police Strength | 23 Personnel (incl. SWAT) | Highly Improbable failure to intercept |
| Suspect Weapon | Country-made pistol & 2 cartridges | Minimal threat vs massive force |
| FIR Authenticity | Legitimate self-defense | Prima facie 'False' |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did the High Court doubt the police version?
The court found it hard to believe that a large SWAT-backed team could not intercept a single man on an e-rickshaw, and the FIR details seemed fabricated.
2. What is the CBI tasked to investigate specifically?
The CBI will investigate the legitimacy of the encounter and the specific shooting accuracy/intent of the SHO involved.
