Strange that 23 cops feared his katta: Allahabad HC orders CBI probe into police encounter of accused

The Allahabad High Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged encounter shooting of a man accused of attempting to open fire on a police team deployed to arrest him in an abduction case [Chotkau Alias Allauddin v State of UP and 4 Others].

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi directed the CBI to conduct an independent inquiry into the correctness of the allegations in the FIR lodged against Chhotkau alias Allauddin, who was shot in both legs by the police in May 2025.

The Court also directed that the shooting capacity of the then Station House Officer (SHO) of Ikauna police station, Ashwini Kumar Dubey, be assessed to determine whether he could have aimed and fired a 9 mm service pistol from a distance of 15 metres at night, allegedly merely by hearing the sound of a weapon being loaded by the accused.

The Court called it strange that a police team of 13 persons and a SWAT team of 10 persons had been frightened and called for further reinforcement to tackle a person carrying a katta (country-made pistol) with merely two cartridges. 

"It is also strange that (23) police persons armed with weapons were attacked by the revisionist carrying a katta (country-made pistol) and he had merely two cartridges with him, one of which was used by him and the other was recovered by the police... The Court has serious apprehensions regarding the correctness of the narration made in the FIR and the manner of investigation conducted by the police. Prima facie, it appears that the narration is false,” the Bench said on August 13.

In the order, the Court also flagged repeated incidents of cops in Uttar Pradesh firing at the legs of accused persons.

"The Court is observing day in and day out that whenever the police apprehend a person, it often gives rise to another FIR alleging that when the accused was apprehended, he indulged into indiscriminate firing against the police team. Normally, not even a pellet touches even the uniform of any police person and all of them escape unhurt. The police fires one shot and it hits the accused on his knee or below it," the Bench said.

The Court was hearing a criminal revision filed by Chhotkau challenging the rejection of his discharge application in a case registered against him following the alleged police encounter. He had been booked under Section 109 (attempt to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

According to the FIR, the SHO and 12 other police personnel were patrolling in a government vehicle while searching for Chhotkau, whose name had allegedly surfaced during the investigation of a case involving the kidnapping of a seven-year-old girl.

The FIR stated that the police team later split into three teams and, along with a 10-member SWAT team, took positions near a bridge after receiving information that Chhotkau was travelling towards Nepal in an e-rickshaw.

The police alleged that when Chhotkau was intercepted, he fired at the police team. The SHO claimed that he subsequently fired two rounds in self-defence after hearing the sound of Chhotkau loading his weapon. Both bullets allegedly struck Chhotkau in his legs. A country-made pistol and cartridges were then recovered from the spot. The police added that Chhotkau later confessed to abducting and raping the seven-year-old child.

The Court, however, raised serious doubts over the police's version of their encounter with Chhotkau.

The Court called it strange that the 13 police personnel had travelled in a single government vehicle. It also questioned how the police team could have split into three teams and moved in different directions while travelling in a single vehicle.

“Unless the vehicle was a mini bus, it was not physically possible for 13 persons to sit in a government vehicle used by the police for patrolling and going to arrest an accused person, as normally jeeps, SUVs or MUVs are used by the police for such purposes and those vehicles normally do not have sitting capacity of 13 persons. Legally also, it was not permissible to carry 13 persons in a jeep, SUV or MUV,” the Bench said.

It asked the SHO about the justification of firing a second gunshot in the alleged self defense of the entire team of 23 persons. In response, the police officer stated that as he was using a semi-automatic pistol which fires shots quickly. However, the Court was not convinced with his answers.

"Prima facie it appears that the complainant S.H.O. has not given a true narration in the FIR and he has not given a true narration to this court also and has apparently tried to mislead the court," it said.

Further, the Court noted that all 23 police officials involved in the encounter had been rewarded for their alleged “good work”, which included the alleged extraction of a confession from Chhotkau. 

However, the Court observed that the apparent cause of the police's annoyance against him could have been the Supreme Court's earlier observations against the prosecution while acquitting him in a previous case of rape and murder.

Chhotkau had earlier been convicted and sentenced in a 2012 case involving the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl. The High Court had affirmed the conviction and sentence.

However, the Supreme Court, in September 2022, set aside the conviction and acquitted him, finding serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence and faults in the investigation.

The Supreme Court had observed that the prosecution had done injustice both to the victim's family by failing to investigate properly and to Chhotkau by fixing culpability without evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny.

Considering this previous case and the doubtful version of police about the encounter, the High Court on August 13 ordered an independent investigation into the matter.

“The aforesaid facts give rise to a necessity of a thorough investigation to be conducted by an independent agency, namely the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),” the Court said.

Meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the July 2 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shravasti, rejecting Chhotkau's discharge plea, has been stayed until the next date of hearing.

The matter will next be heard on November 23, 2026.

Advocates  Nadeem Murtaza, Utkarsh Srivastava, Prashast Puri, Niharika Srivastava and Parth Anand represented the petitioner (Chhotkau).

Additional Government Advocate GD Bhatt represented the State.

[Read Order]