Rinku @ Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.188 of 2025 under Section 333, 109, 115(2), 351(3), 352, 191(2), 191(3) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Auras, District Unnao.

¶11

As per the instructions of learned A.G.A. notice to the complainant has been served, however no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶13

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 13.06.2025, at about 10:30 a.m., an incident took place in the house of the applicant. It is alleged that the named accused persons entered the house of the applicant armed with weapons such as lathi, danda, dhanka, and tabla, with a common intention to kill. It is further alleged that the said accused persons attacked the applicant's parents, namely Smt. Phulbasa (mother) and Shri Mangulal (father), with dhanka and tabla, causing them serious injuries. Both the injured persons were taken for medical treatment at the Community Health Centre, Auras.

¶14

It is also alleged that when the applicant's brothers, Prem Shankar and Arvind, were proceeding towards the police station to lodge a complaint regarding the said incident, the aforesaid accused persons intercepted

¶15

NABAIL No. 2048 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

them at Nandauli canal bridge and assaulted them mercilessly. The complainant has also stated that during the course of the incident, he was beaten and abused with caste-based filthy language.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has raised objections regarding the maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application.

¶19

Replying to the said objection, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 , and has submitted that no specific caste-related abuse has been referred to in the FIR, and therefore, the bar under Section 18 or 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) would not apply. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is maintainable.

¶20

Perused the record as well as the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India (supra), and the contents of the FIR, which prima facie indicate that no specific caste name has been alleged to have been uttered by the accused persons.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that cross FIRs have been lodged by both sides in respect of the same incident. It is stated that five persons from the complainant's side have sustained injuries, all of which are simple in nature, and the injury reports are on record. From the side of the accused, two persons have also sustained injuries.

¶22

It is submitted that prima facie no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) appears to be made out. Likewise, the ingredients to attract Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are also absent, in view of the nature of the simple injuries suffered by the injured persons.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶24

List this case on 27.1.2026.

¶25

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file objections/counter affidavit.

¶26

NABAIL No. 2048 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

On due consideration of the injury reports of the injured persons, the statements of the injured witnesses, and the contents of the FIR, in which prima facie no allegation regarding the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 appears to have been made, as also taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, coupled with the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation, as well as the law laid down in Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, and without entering into the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶29

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶30

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days' from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness.

¶31

The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶32

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶33

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶34

December 18, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rinku @ Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku @ Umesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Mo. Vasim Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Indar Kumar @ Indal Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shivakant Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Trilochan Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Sonam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Khushpreet Kaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.