The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of two Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel accused in the alleged custodial death of a 35-year-old man in Gonda.
Justice Manish Mathur of the Lucknow bench observed that while the COVID-19 pandemic had ended, “the plague of custodial death” did not appear to have declined.
The court made the observation while dismissing separate appeals filed by RPF sub-inspector Karan Singh Yadav and constable Amit Kumar Yadav.
RPF Personnel Challenge Bail Rejection
The two personnel had challenged an August 4 order of the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act in Gonda, which rejected their anticipatory bail applications.
The case concerns the alleged custodial death of Sanjay Kumar Sonkar, a resident of Kinki village in Gonda.
The court said, “It appears that although the COVID-19 pandemic had run its course but the plague of custodial death does not show any sign of abating.”
The bench further observed that in custodial death cases, the burden of proof can and should ordinarily be placed on police personnel to rebut allegations made against them.
Man Taken for Questioning Over Train Theft
According to the prosecution, six tins of mustard oil were stolen from a goods train travelling from Gonda to Guwahati on September 28, 2025, near Baruachak in the Motiganj railway station area.
The RPF was investigating the theft when Sonkar’s name allegedly emerged during the inquiry.
The FIR states that on November 4, 2025, RPF personnel took Sonkar with them for questioning. At around 4.30 pm, he was reportedly brought to his village as part of the investigation and was later taken away again.
The following morning, his brother was allegedly informed that Sonkar’s body had been kept at a mortuary.
Prosecution Alleges Assault in Custody
The prosecution alleged that Sonkar was assaulted while in custody and that the injuries resulted in his death.
The two RPF personnel denied the allegations and claimed that they had been falsely implicated.
Their lawyer relied on the post-mortem report, which recorded bruises and abrasions on the upper thigh and abrasions on both knees. The defence argued that the injuries mentioned in the report were not sufficient to cause death.
State Opposes Anticipatory Bail
The state opposed the bail applications, stressing the seriousness of the allegations.
The prosecution also claimed that the accused were not cooperating with the investigation.
The High Court ultimately rejected the appeals, observing that the significance of the post-mortem findings would have to be assessed on the basis of evidence during the proceedings.
