Rinku Sharma @ Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 183 of 2026

¶3

Rinku Sharma @ Deepak Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Others	Lko.	And 3 .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶11

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with complaint case No. 1/2014, under Section 376(2)G IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Hardoi.

¶12

In the present case, notice was issued to respondent no. 2 by passing an order dated 09.03.2026. It was also directed thereby to list this case on 23.03.2026 while granting time to learned AGA to file counter affidavit.

¶13

As per Office report dated 03.04.2026, the notice has been served upon respondent no. 2 through heir.

¶14

Today when the case is taken up, neither the respondent no. 2 is present nor any vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by passing order dated 09.03.2026. For convenience, the said order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶16

"1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶17

ABAIL No. 183 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

2. Prayer to make the necessary correction to the particulars of opposite party no.2, is allowed.

¶20

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the same, during the course of the day.

¶21

4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to Complaint Case No. 01 of 2014, under Sections 376(2)G IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Shahar, District-Hardoi.

¶22

5. For the purposes of entertaining present application as also for protecting the interest of the applicant namely Rinku Sharma alias Deepak Kumar s/o Ramu Sharma, aged about 40 years, this Court considered the various aspects of the case as indicated including from the certified copy of the complaint annexed at page no.15 to the present application including the following :-

¶23

(i) The applicant is a real brother of co-accused Pankaj Sharma and Dheeraj Sharma.

¶24

(ii) According to complaint case, on 10.11.2013 at about 2:30 hours, the applicant and coaccused Dheeraj Sharma and also another co-accused Nanhe Singh, were standing at the main door of the house of the complainant (place of occurrence) and all these accused asked the coaccused Pankaj Sharma to enter into the house of the complainant/victim and outrage her modesty and thereafter the co-accused Pankaj Sharma entered into the house and outraged the modesty of the complainant and threatened the complainant with knife and established physical relations with the complainant/victim against her wishes.

¶25

(iii) Complaint case making allegations against all the accused persons, was instituted in the court of CJM Hardoi on 21.11.2023;

¶26

(iv) Considering the allegations levelled in the complaint, the same was taken up by the court of Sessions namely Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi (in short 'trial court') and the trial court solely based upon the statement(s) recorded in terms of Section(s) 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicant and other co-accused to face the trial for offence under Section(s) 376(2)G IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act vide order dated 24.08.2015.

¶27

(v) It appears that the order was passed in absence of medical evidence to corroborate the allegations levelled in the FIR.

¶28

6. This Court also considered the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court made in the judgment passed in the case of Karan Talwar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2024 INSC 1012), according to which the statement of the prosecutrix/victim cannot be taken as gospel truth.

¶29

7. This Court also considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant that story set up against the real brother is highly improbable.

¶30

ABAIL No. 183 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

8. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶33

9. Taking note of the aforesaid, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Rinku Sharma alias Deepak Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties, out of which one shall be the family member/close relative of the accused-applicant, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶34

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶35

(ii) That the accused-applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

¶36

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶37

10. Issue notice, returnable at an early date. Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days.

¶38

11. List/put up this application on 23.03.2026 within top twenty cases.

¶39

12. Learned AGA is directed to file an affidavit in response to this application annexing therewith the proof of service of notice upon private opposite party through concerned police officer before this Court when the case is listed next. "

¶40

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the main ground for granting the ad-interim anticipatory bail was "it appears that the order was passed in absence of medical evidence to corroborate the allegations levelled in the FIR' and by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Talwar v. the State of Tamil Nadu [2024 INSC 1012], wherein it has been held that 'the statement of the prosecutrix/victim cannot be taken as gospel truth.'

¶41

It is further submitted that along with the counter affidavit, the medical evidence has not been filed.

¶42

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instruction received has submitted that there is nothing new brought in the instruction to oppose the anticipatory bail on the grounds on which ad-interim anticipatory bail was

¶43

ABAIL No. 183 of 2026

¶44

4

¶45

granted by this Court. Upon due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the ad-interim bail granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed and the present anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of order dated 09.03.2026 while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rinku Sharma @ Deepak Kumar till disposal of the trial, the applicant shall appear before the court concerned and furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :-

¶46

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and shall not abscond;

¶47

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶48

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶49

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶50

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶51

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶52

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶53

May 13, 2026

¶54

Nitesh

¶55

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rinku Sharma @ Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Sharma @ Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Nirmala Devi vs Prabhat Kumar Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Sultanpur

Aneeta Kumari vs Shashank Tripathi, Dist. Magistrate / Collector Barabanki

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

Gyanpeeth Inter College Lko. Thru. Manager Sunita Gupta Vs Abhishek Prakash D.M. Lko.

Divakar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava vs Sanjay Chauhan Presently Functioning District Magistrate/Collector Amethi