MAHENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6909 of 2026

Mahendra Singh And Another
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Shiva Shanker Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   G.A.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is
taken on record.

2. As per office report, notice has been served personally on opposite party
no.2. But no one has appeared on his behalf.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants challenging the summoning order dated 07.03.2026
passed by Special Judge S.C.& S.T. Act, Bijnor and charge-sheet No. 30 of
2026 dated 31.01.2026 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions
Trial No. 1360 of 2026 (State vs. Mahendra Singh and another) arising out
of Case Crime No. 02 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and
126(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) va S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Chandpur, District
Bijnor.

5. Tersely, as per the FIR version, the informant Ankul Kumar alleged that
on 28.12.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., while he was proceeding through the
village, accused Mahendra Singh, son of Munesh, stopped him and started
abusing him without any reason. When the informant objected, the accused
appellants Mahendra Singh and Munesh allegedly assaulted him with kicks
and fists and used a caste-indicative slur, referring to him by his caste. The
accused further threatened to drive him out of the village.

6. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order
                                                           CRLA No. 6909 of 2026
                                 2


dated 07.03.2026 passed by Special Judge S.C.& S.T. Act, Bijnor 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.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the prosecution
version is doubtful and that the appellants have been implicated on the basis
of an exaggerated and delayed version of the occurrence. It is contended that
the alleged incident took place on 28.12.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged
only on 01.01.2026, after an unexplained delay of three days. Such delay,
according to learned counsel, creates serious doubt regarding the
genuineness of the prosecution case and the manner in which the appellants
have been implicated. It is further submitted that the injuries found on the
person of the injured are minor in nature and do not support the allegation of
a serious assault. Learned counsel submits that the medical report records
only a small abrasion over the right nostril and a complaint of body pain,
with no grievous or significant injury having been found. It is argued that the
prosecution has sought to improve its case by assigning specific roles to the
appellants and by alleging the use of casteist slurs. Learned counsel,
therefore, submits that the material collected during investigation does not
furnish sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellants and that the
order taking cognizance is liable to be interfered with.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that the
accused-appellants are specifically named in the FIR and specific and
distinct roles have been attributed to them. It is submitted that the injured, in
his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, has categorically stated the
involvement of the appellants in causing injuries and abusing him by using
casteist slurs at a place within public view. The said version is further
supported by the statements of the independent eyewitnesses.Learned
A.G.A. further submits that the medical examination was conducted during
the course of investigation and the medical report records an abrasion over
the right nostril and a complaint of body pain. The doctor has opined that the
injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Thus, the medical evidence
lends prima facie corroboration to the ocular version of the injured. It is
contended that the nature or extent of the injuries cannot, at the stage of
taking cognizance, be treated as determinative of the existence of a prima
facie case. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, learned A.G.A.
submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 28.12.2025 and the FIR
was registered on 01.01.2026, but the mere delay in lodging the FIR does
                                                          CRLA No. 6909 of 2026
                                 3


not, by itself, demolish the prosecution case. The effect, explanation and
evidentiary significance of such delay are matters to be assessed on the basis
of evidence during trial. Learned A.G.A. accordingly submits that the
material on record discloses sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed
against the accused-appellants and that no interference is warranted at the
stage of cognizance.

9. Having regard to the material available on record, it is evident that the
accused-appellants are specifically named in the FIR and distinct roles have
been attributed to them, including causing injuries to the injured/victim and
abusing him by using casteist slurs at a place within public view. The mere
fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of three days, the alleged
occurrence having taken place on 28.12.2025 and the FIR having been
registered on 01.01.2026, cannot, at this stage, by itself, be a ground to
discard the prosecution version. The effect and explanation of such delay, as
well as its evidentiary significance, are matters which may appropriately be
examined by the learned trial court during the course of trial.

10. The injured has, in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer
under Section 180 BNSS, specifically stated the role and involvement of the
accused-appellants in causing the injuries. The medical examination
conducted thereafter also lends prima facie support to the prosecution
version. The medical report records two injuries, namely, a dry scab abrasion
measuring 1.0 × 0.7 cm over the right nostril, 2.05 cm lateral to the lip of the
nose, and a complaint of body pain. The doctor has opined that the injuries
were caused by a hard and blunt object. The prosecution case is further
supported by the statements of the independent eyewitnesses, while the
medical evidence lends corroboration to the version of the first informant.

11. Thus, at the stage of taking cognizance, the material on record discloses
sufficient prima facie grounds connecting the accused-appellants with the
alleged occurrence. The questions relating to the delay in lodging the FIR,
the reliability and credibility of the witnesses, the evidentiary value of the
medical report, and the ultimate truthfulness of the prosecution allegations
are matters requiring appreciation of evidence and are appropriately left for
consideration by the learned trial court at the stage of trial. At this stage, a
meticulous appreciation or evaluation of the evidence is neither warranted
nor permissible.
                                                                                             CRLA No. 6909 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    12. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out at this stage, and the
                                    challenge raised by the accused-appellants does not merit acceptance.

                                    13. This criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed.



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




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