Allahabad HC questions ‘strange coincidence’ of similar wording in 2 FIRs
text_fields
The Allahabad High Court recently flagged what it described as a “strange coincidence” in the identical wording of FIRs filed in two districts located over 150 kilometres apart.
A bench comprising Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava directed the concerned Superintendents of Police to submit fresh personal affidavits. The court asked them to explain the similarities in the FIRs and address inconsistencies highlighted in its April 16 order.
The matter arose while the court was hearing a plea challenging an FIR registered in Hardoi district under provisions including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, the Arms Act 1959, and the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955. The bench noted that in a related petition, an FIR filed in Bahraich district appeared to follow almost the same wording, Indian Express reported.
According to the court’s observations, both FIRs—filed in Hardoi and Bahraich—mentioned that an accused had been shot in the leg during police action. While one FIR stated that the injury was to the right leg, the other used nearly identical phrasing to describe a similar injury. The bench remarked that, at first glance, both cases seemed to fall within the scope of police encounters resulting in serious injuries.
The court further noted that such cases would attract safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v State of Maharashtra. It observed that the apex court had issued detailed guidelines for encounter cases, whether resulting in death or grievous injuries, given the suspicion often surrounding such incidents.
However, the High Court pointed out that the responses submitted by the concerned SPs did not clarify whether these guidelines had been followed. It therefore directed them to file fresh affidavits explaining the discrepancies, detailing compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions, and outlining how those guidelines were implemented.
The bench also indicated that if the safeguards were not followed in both letter and spirit, the officers would need to justify why action should not be initiated against those responsible.
The court granted three weeks for submission of the affidavits and warned that failure to comply would require the SPs to appear in person with relevant records. It also allowed the petitioners to respond to the affidavits, and scheduled the next hearing for May 21.