Allowed¶14

Anoop Urf Rinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2025BAIL/39550/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anoop Urf Rinku bail allowed; Allahabad High Court; Santosh Rai, J.; December 1, 2025; Bail Application No. 39550 of 2025; Case Crime No. 12 of 2023; P.S. Sureer, Mathura; IPC 147 148 149 323 325 308 452 506; parity with co-accused Nahne @ Mahesh (Bail No. 21631 of 2024, order dt. 03.06.2024); Manish Sisodia para 53; K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; Article 21; personal bond two sureties; bail conditions; custody since 29.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the five enumerated conditions; identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before acceptance of bonds. ¶14

Anoop Urf Rinku vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Anoop Urf Rinku, arraigned in Case Crime No. 12 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, District Mathura, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Bail granted: the Court found force in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, paragraph no.53 of Manish Sisodia, and the dictum in K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil, ordered release on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The release is on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; personal presence on dates fixed including opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement of the accused; proceedings in accordance with law in case of misuse of liberty; and verification of identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties before bonds are accepted.

¶14

Key takeaways

Breach of any of the bail conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Single Judge (Santosh Rai, J.) of the Allahabad High Court allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39550 of 2025 filed by Anoop Urf Rinku, an accused in Case Crime No. 12 of 2023, Police Station Sureer, District Mathura, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C., and directed his release on bail on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount. Reliance was placed on paragraph no.53 of Manish Sisodia (2024 SC LawSuit 677), Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51, on the larger mandate of Article 21 and on the uncertainty of trial concluding soon; parity was urged from the bail granted to co-accused Nahne @ Mahesh (order dated 03.06.2024 in Bail Application No. 21631 of 2024). Release was made subject to five conditions (no tampering/threats, no adjournments when witnesses present, personal presence at key trial dates, action on misuse, verification of identity/residence), with breach constituting a ground for cancellation. No opinion was expressed on the merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39550 of 2025

¶3

Anoop Urf Rinku

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Indu Tewari, Ravi Kant Shukla : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA, Shri Anil Singh for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Anoop Urf Rinku with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 308, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sureer, District Mathura during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that though, the applicant is named in the F.I.R., but no specific and separate role has been assigned to the accused applicant in this incident. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that applicant has not committed any marpeet with the informant or any other persons. He further submits that co-accused Nahne @ Mahesh, who was also not named in the F.I.R., has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21631 of 2024, and therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to

¶10

BAIL No. 39550 of 2025

¶11

¶12

demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, however, he could not dispute the aforementioned facts.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial

¶19

BAIL No. 39550 of 2025

¶20

¶21

Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Santosh Rai,J.)

December 1, 2025

Bhanu

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anoop Urf Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Urf Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manmohan vs State of U.P.

Vindadeen Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

Shubham @ Gaurav vs State of U.P.

Naveen Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Nikhil Gautam @ Netaji vs State of U.P.