ARYAN SINGH YADAV ALIAS TONIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10463 of 2025

Aryan Singh Yadav Alias Toni
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Radhey Shyam Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   G.A.

Court No. - 93
                      HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellant to set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated
15.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah, in
Sessions Case No. 1245 of 2024, State Vs. Aryan Singh Yadav @ Toni and
3 Others, along with Charge-sheet No. 174 of 2023 dated 30.07.2023, arising
out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Aliganj, District
Etah.

3. Tersely, as per the FIR, the informant Saurabh Katheriya alleged that on
26.05.2023, he attended a community feast (bhandara) organized at S.S.
Resort, Kayamganj Road, along with other persons. During the meal,
accused appellant Aryan Yadav, allegedly used caste-based abusive
language and threatened the informant. When the informant objected, Aryan
Yadav allegedly dragged him outside and assaulted him. It is further alleged
that other accused persons, namely Kallu, Pankaj Yadav and others, joined
the assault, threw the informant to the ground, beat him with kicks and fists,
and subjected him to caste-based abuses. Accused appelant Aryan Yadav
allegedly placed a licensed pistol on the informant's chest and threatened to
kill him if he reported the matter to the police.

4. Briefly, the    grounds   of    the   appeal    are   that   the
impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the
                                                         CRLA No. 10463 of 2025
                                2


learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah, is wholly illegal and not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and
conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has
been falsely implicated on account of political enmity and that the
allegations made against him are not supported by reliable material. It is
further submitted that the appellant has been implicated with an ulterior
motive and that the material collected during investigation does not disclose
the commission of the offences alleged against him. Learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is
not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the
appellant has been specifically named in the First Information Report,
wherein his role in causing injuries to the victim/informant and abusing him
by using caste-related derogatory words has been clearly stated. It is further
submitted that the statement of the injured recorded during investigation
substantially corroborates the allegations contained in the First Information
Report. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn attention to the injury report,
according to which four injuries were found on the person of the injured,
most of which were on vital parts of the body. It is thus submitted that the
medical evidence prima facie lends corroboration to the version of the
injured. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the alleged incident took
place at a place within public view and, therefore, the ingredients relevant to
the applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie attracted. It is
submitted that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required
to ascertain whether the material available on record discloses a prima facie
case against the accused and that a detailed appreciation of the evidence or
consideration of the defence on merits is not warranted at this stage. On
these grounds, learned A.G.A. has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. In the First Information Report, the accused-appellant has been
specifically named, and his role and involvement in causing injuries to the
victim/informant and abusing him by using caste-related derogatory words
have been clearly stated. During the course of investigation, the statement of
the injured/victim was recorded by the Investigating Officer, wherein he
                                                         CRLA No. 10463 of 2025
                                3


stated that on 26.05.2023, he had gone to S.S. Resort, Kayamganj Road, to
attend the oath-taking ceremony of Smt. Sunita Gupta. Arrangements for
food had been made at the said place, and he was having dinner along with
others. At about 11:30 p.m., Aryan Yadav @ Toni, son of Shivpal Yadav,
came there and abused him by using caste-related derogatory words and
remarked, "Dhanukta, you have so much courage to eat food with us." After
the injured had finished his meal and got up, Aryan Yadav caught hold of his
collar and dragged him outside, where he again abused him by using caste-
related derogatory words. The injuries sustained by the victim were caused
by the accused-appellant, and the injury report is available on record. As per
the First Information Report dated 01.06.2023, the incident occurred on
26.05.2023, whereas the injured was medically examined and his injury
report was prepared on 27.05.2023. Four injuries were found on the person
of the injured, most of which were sustained on vital parts of the body. The
medical evidence, therefore, prima facie lends corroboration to the statement
of the injured. The incident took place at a place within public view, which
is a relevant consideration while examining the applicability of the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of political enmity.
However, at this stage, no material has been placed on record to substantiate
the said allegation. The plea of false implication on account of political
rivalry, therefore, by itself, does not warrant interference with the impugned
order taking cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the learned trial
court is required to examine whether, on the basis of the material available
on record, a prima facie case is made out against the accused. At this stage, a
detailed appreciation of the evidence or a meticulous examination of the
defence of the accused is not warranted.

8. Considering the statement of the injured, the averments contained in the
FIR and the medical evidence, this Court finds that the learned trial court has
rightly taken cognizance against the accused-appellant.

9. Consequently, this criminal appeal is dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been
granted bail.

11. In view of above submission, the appellant is directed to appear before
                                                                                            CRLA No. 10463 of 2025
                                                                    4


                                    the court concerned and move bail application, within two weeks from
                                    today. It is also made clear that no time extension application shall be moved
                                    before this Court by the appellant.

                                    12. In case, the appellant moves bail application before the court concerned,
                                    the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court expeditiously and
                                    preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid down by the Supreme
                                    Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
                                    Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 & Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. &
                                    Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676 regarding surrender and bail.

                                    13. In case, the appellant fails to appear before the court concerned within
                                    the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate
                                    coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence of
                                    the appellant.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad