Allahabad High Court

RAKESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the appellants pending trial.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered four related bail appeals filed under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by Rakesh Kumar, Vipin, Aman Kumar @ Tagharu and Rajendra Tiwari, who were accused of assaulting Kuldeep, who later died. The FIR was lodged three days after the alleged incident and the post‑mortem could not conclusively determine the cause of death, with the viscera report showing no poison. The prosecution alleged that the accused were named in the FIR and participated in the assault, while the defence argued that the allegations were general, the evidence was inconclusive, and there was no risk of tampering. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of specific role assigned to the accused, and the absence of material indicating evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court granted bail to all appellants with strict conditions and set aside the lower court’s denial of bail.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting bail to the accused under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act pending trial.
Whether the three‑day delay in filing the FIR and the inconclusive cause of death justify bail.
Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations and lack of specific role for the accused preclude continued detention.
Whether there is a risk of evidence tampering or interference with the investigation if bail is granted.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. Act, 2023 — s. 105, 115(2), 209, 269, 351, 84
Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 191(2)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
assault
death investigation
delay in FIR
general and omnibus allegations
evidence tampering
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5516 of 2026

Rakesh Kumar
.....Appellant(s)

Versus
State of U.P. and another
.....Respondent(s)

Along with :
1. Criminal Appeal No. 5793 of 2026:
Vipin
Versus
State of U.P. and another
2. Criminal Appeal No. 6176 of 2026:
Aman Kumar @ Tagharu
Versus
State of U.P. and another
3. Criminal Appeal No. 6189 of 2026:
Rajendra Tiwari
Versus
State of U.P. and another

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manvendra Singh, Rajendra Prasad
Pandey, Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Ram
Krishna Yadav, Subhash Chandra Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant- Rakesh
Kumar; Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant- Vipin;
Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants- Aman Kumar @ Tagharu
and Rajendra Tiwari and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State in all
the matters and perused the record.

3. Vide orders dated 03.06.2026, 09.06.2026, 24.06.2026 and 24.06.2026
notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 in all the matters. As per the
office reports dated 08.07.2026, 10.07.2026, 14.07.2026 and 14.07.2026
notice has been served personally upon the opposite party no. 2. Despite
CRLA No. 5516 of 2026
2

service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

4. All the appeals with the prayer for bail are connected together and are
being decided by a common order.

5. The Criminal Appeal No. 5516 of 2026 under Section 14-A (2) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has
been preferred by the appellant- Rakesh Kumar with the prayer to set aside
the order dated 03.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge /
Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Fatehpur in Bail Application No. 470 /
2026 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of
2026, under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v),
3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Asothar, District Fatehpur, with a
further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case during the
pendency of trial.

6. The Criminal Appeal No. 5793 of 2026 under Section 14-A (2) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has
been preferred by the appellant- Vipin, with the prayer to set aside the order
dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge,
SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Fatehpur in Second Bail Application No. 784 / 2026
arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2026, under Sections 3(5), 105, 115 (2)
B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Asothar,
District Fatehpur, with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the
aforesaid case during the pendency of the present appeal.

7. The Criminal Appeal Nos. 6176 of 2026 and 6189 of 2026 under Section
14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants- Aman Kumar @
Tagharu and Rajendra Tiwari, with the prayer to set aside the orders dated
21.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Bail
Application No. 642 / 2026 (Rajendra Tiwari and Another Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2026, under Sections 115 (2), 105, 3(5)
BNS and Section 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5क) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Asothar,
District Fatehpur, with a further prayer to release the appellants on bail in the
aforesaid case during the pendency of the present appeal.

8. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on
08.03.2026 by Smt. Chandi Devi against the appellants, Brahmesh, Shiva
and Ashish alleging therein that on 05.03.2026 at about 5.30 pm the accused
CRLA No. 5516 of 2026
3

and two unknown persons assaulted Kuldeep due to which he received
injuries. On 07.03.2026 he was taken to CHC, Sarai Khalis and admitted
there where looking to his critical condition he was referred to District
Hospital, Fatehpur and then referred to Hallet Hospital, Kanpur. When he
was being taken to Kanpur he died on the way and police on 112 was
informed who informed the SHO concerned. A report be lodged and action
be taken.

9. The postmortem examination of Kuldeep was conducted on 08.03.2026 in
which the doctor found the following injuries:-

"1. Injury No. 1. Stitched wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on left side forehead number of stitches two.

2. Injury No 2, Abrasion of size 3 cm X 2 cm present on left shoulder

3. Injury No. 3, Abrasion with scar mark of size 3 cm x 2 cm present on right knee joint in brownish colour

4. Injury No.4, Abrasion with scar mark of size 2 cm x 1 cm, 3 cm X 2 cm present on left knee joint in
brownish colour

5. Injury No.5, Contusion of size 3 cm X 4 cm present on left scapula and 3 cm X 2 cm present on left side
chest region in blackish colour

6 Injury No.6, Abrasion with scar mark of size 2 cm x 2 cm present on right greater toe

7. Injury No.7, Contusion of size 3 cm X 2 cm present on right side chest and 4 cm X 2 cm present on right
scapula in blackish colour

8. Injury No.8, Contusion of size 3 cm x 4 cm present on left occipital region

9. Injury No.9, Abrasion of size 1 cm X 0.5 cm present on left ear

10. Injury No 10, On dissection of neck in v shape layer by layer hematoma present in between lyringo
hyoid complex and cervical vertebrae at places."

10. The cause of death was opined as:-

"Could not be ascertained hence viscera, blood sample and stomach content preserved for chemical
analysis and alcoholic examination, nail clipping and nail scraping preserved for skin tissue and other
foreign body traces, blood sample and urine sample preserved for alcoholic examination and
concentration traces"

11. The viscera report has been filed by the State a perusal of which would
go to show that the sample of blood and urine of the deceased was sent for
chemical examination in which no chemical poison was found as per the
CRLA No. 5516 of 2026
4

report dated 19.08.2026.

12. Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the appellants have
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that common &
general have been assigned to the appellants and three other persons. It is
submitted that in so far as the injuries received by the injured are concerned,
the injury no.1 was on the left side forehead which was stitched wound and
in the internal examination the meninges were found lacerated whereas all
the other injuries were having no internal damage. It is submitted that doctor
did not opine regarding the cause of death of the deceased and viscera was
preserved which also did not find anything in it. It is submitted that as per
the prosecution case the present incident occurred on 05.03.2026 but the
injured Kuldeep was taken to the CHC on 07.03.2026 for the first time. It is
submitted that the first information report has been lodged after an
inordinate delay of 03 days. It is further submitted that the investigation in
the matter has concluded and a charge-sheet dated 21.04.2026 has been
submitted and thus there are no chances of the appellants tampering with
evidence. It is submitted that there is no specific role assigned to the
appellants. The appellants Rakesh Kumar and Vipin have no criminal history
as stated in para 24, 33 of their affidavits and are in jail since
09.03.2026. The appellant Aman Kumar @ Tagharu has criminal history of
three cases as stated in paragraph 21 of the affidavit and paragraph 03 of the
supplementary affidavit dated 01.09.2026 and is in jail since
08.04.2026. The appellant Rajendra Tiwari has criminal history of two cases
as stated in paragraph 22 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.03.2026.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that the appellants are named in the first information report and
have been assigned the role of assault on the deceased Kuldeep along with
three other persons. It is submitted that the deceased was found to have
received 10 injuries on his person and thus it cannot be said that the present
incident did not occur and further that there was no role to the accused
persons since the number of injuries exceed the number of accused named in
the first information report which is 07 in number. It is submitted that the
prayer for bail be dismissed.

14. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the accused-appellants and 03 others have been
assigned general and omnibus allegations of assault on Kuldeep. The cause
CRLA No. 5516 of 2026
5

of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera
report does not show anything in it. The first information report has been
lodged after an unexplained delay of 03 days. The deceased was taken to the
hospital at the first instance after 02 days of the alleged incident.

15. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the
appellants may be enlarged on bail.

16. Let the appellants- Rakesh Kumar, Vipin, Aman Kumar @ Tagharu
and Rajendra Tiwari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are
being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The appellants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The appellants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the
trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance
with law.

(iv) The appellants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and
in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S.,
2023 may be issued and if appellants fail to appear before the court on the
date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate
proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S.,
2023.

(v) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of
the trial court absence of the appellants is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of
CRLA No. 5516 of 2026
6

liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law and the trial
court may proceed against them under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellants.

17. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
appellants to prison.

18. Accordingly, the appeals succeed and the same stands allowed.

19. The impugned orders dated 03.04.2026, 04.05.2026, 21.04.2026 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.)
Act, Fatehpur of the aforesaid cases are hereby set aside.

20. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

September 21, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…