Allahabad High Court

RAJA RAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 1 April 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The High Court held that the summoning order was lawful and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The appellants challenged a summoning order issued by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing that the FIR was filed with a one‑day delay, that no assault or caste‑based insult was proved, and that the trial court ignored medical evidence. The respondents contended that the incident was admitted, five persons were injured, and caste‑based abusive language was used, justifying the summons. The High Court examined the statements of the injured parties and found prima facie evidence of offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act. It held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the court directing the appellants to seek bail if desired, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.

Issues considered

The legality and validity of the summoning order dated 19.09.2025 under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act.
Whether the one‑day delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
Whether the evidence establishes assault and caste‑based insult as required under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Whether the trial court erred in summoning the appellants without proper consideration of documentary evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha)

Subjects

SC/ST Act
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Assault
Summoning order
Criminal appeal
Bail
FIR delay

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10964 of 2025

Raja Ram And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Km. Sakshi Patel, Shiv Naresh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Surya Pratap Singh Parmar

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Shiv Naresh, learned counsel for the appellants; Ms. Vandana Singh
Parmar, Advocate holding brief for Shri S.P.S. Parmar, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2; and the learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants
challenge the legality and validity of the summoning order dated 19.09.2025, whereby
the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhadohi–Gyanpur, has summoned the appellants to
face trial under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the BNS, and under Sections 3(1)(Da)
and 3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the First Information Report was
lodged by opposite party no. 2 with a delay of one day, for which no explanation has
been provided. It is further submitted that the appellants did not commit any assault
upon opposite party no. 2, and as per the medical report, the injuries sustained are
general in nature. It is also contended that the appellants neither intentionally insulted
nor used caste-based words against opposite party no. 2. The trial court, without
properly considering the documentary evidence and statements of witnesses, has
illegally summoned the appellants, and the order is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the incident is admitted, and
the appellants committed assault, resulting in injuries to five persons. It is also
submitted that the appellants abused opposite party no. 2 using caste-based remarks,
and therefore, the trial court has rightly summoned the accused appellants.

6. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that five persons were injured in the
incident, which supports the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer has recorded
the statements of the injured persons, which prima facie establish offences under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of the
SC/ST Act.
CRLA No. 10964 of 2025
2

7. In view of the above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the
trial court summoning the accused appellants.

8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

9. The appellants are at liberty to file a bail application before the concerned trial court
and may also file an appropriate application in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. If such an
application is filed, the concerned trial court shall pass an order in accordance with
law.

April 2, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…