The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Tuesday rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by a Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel accused in a case concerning the alleged custodial death of a man in Gonda, observing that the "plague of custodial death does not show any sign of abating".

A bench of Justice Manish Mathur was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) SC-ST Act, challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gonda.

Briefly put, an FIR was lodged alleging that the appellant, along with co-accused RPF personnel, arrested and took away the informant's brother (Sanjay Sonkar) for questioning in connection with a criminal case on November 4, 2025.

According to the FIR, Sonkar was brought back to the village at around 4:30 PM the same day for further investigation and was subsequently taken away again.

The informant was allegedly informed the next morning that his brother's corpse was lying in the mortuary. The allegations included brutal assault while he was in custody, resulting in his death.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that he had been falsely implicated and that the post-mortem report did not support the allegation of custodial assault leading to death.

It was pointed out that the post-mortem report recorded only two injuries, a contusion over the upper thigh and abrasions over both knees, and it was argued that these injuries could not have caused death.

The appellant, being police personnel, was also stated to be cooperating with the ongoing investigation.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that the FIR disclosed a custodial death, which was a serious offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. It also argued that the application was barred by Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

The High Court rejected the preliminary objection based on Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

The HC observed that the top court's decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India had neither been overruled nor had the Supreme Court laid down that an anticipatory bail application would be absolutely barred merely because an allegation under the SC/ST Act was made in an FIR.

The Court also observed that, on perusal of the FIR, it does not appear that any allegation has been leveled under the SC/ST Act per se. It found that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act appeared to have been indicated in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the punishment.

The preliminary objection was accordingly rejected.

Turning to the merits of the case, the Court said that, at that stage and without entering into the merits, the primary gist of the allegations pertains to custodial death.

It observed that whether the post-mortem report corroborated the allegations against the appellant would have to be examined during the examination and, subsequently, at trial, if a charge-sheet was filed.

The Court then made a strong observation on custodial deaths:

"It is thus apparent from the aforesaid that the allegations levelled pertain to the aspect of venomous snake of custodial death rearing its head once again in the present proceedings. It appears that although COVID-19 pandemic had run its course but the plague of custodial death does not show any sign of abating".

The Court further held that in cases of custodial death, "the burden of proof can and should ordinarily be on the police personnel to rebut the allegations levelled against them pertaining to trivializing human life in their depravity".

It added that the burden would therefore be upon the appellant to explain the allegations, which, at that stage, did not appear to have been made out.

In view of its discussion, the Court concluded that there was no good ground to grant indulgence to the appellant.

Case Title - Karan Singh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714

Click Here To Read/Download Order