Allahabad High Court

ANKIT @ AKHILESH SRIVASTAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The trial court correctly summoned the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellant, Ankit alias Akhilesh Srivastav, appealed against a charge-sheet and a cognizance order issued by a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging assault and casteist slurs. The appellant contended that the FIR only implicated two co‑accused in the caste‑based abuse and that the victim’s later statement and a medical report prepared before the FIR’s registration raised doubts about a prima facie case. The State argued that the FIR, the victim’s statement under Section 180 of the Evidence Act, and the medical report collectively established that all accused, including the appellant, used casteist slurs and caused injuries. The High Court held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the trial court need not examine the evidence in depth but only determine whether a prima facie case exists, and found that the material on record satisfied this requirement. Consequently, the Court concluded that the trial court’s order summoning the appellant was lawful and well‑reasoned. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was directed to apply for bail before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR and the victim’s subsequent statement sufficiently allege caste‑based abuse by the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the preparation of the medical report prior to the registration of the FIR defeats the existence of a prima facie case.
Whether the trial court was justified in taking cognizance and summoning the appellant at the pre‑trial stage.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 180
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)

Subjects

SC/ST Act
casteist slurs
cognizance
charge-sheet
criminal appeal
prima facie case
medical report
FIR
evidence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8006 of 2026

Ankit @ Akhilesh Srivastav
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. As per the office report dated 21.9.2026, notice has been served upon
opposite party no.2 personally.

2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party
no.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and learned AGA for
the State.

4. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the charge-sheet dated 28.2.2026 as well as impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated 29.4.2026 passed by Special Judge,
SC/ST (PA) Act, Jhansi in Session Case No.352 of 2026 (State vs. Vikas
Dwivedi @ Kallu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.398 of 2025,
under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Jhansi.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations under the
SC/ST Act are not made out against all the accused persons, as the FIR
specifically attributes the use of casteist slurs only to accused persons
Kallu Tiwari and Shashank Upadhyay, while no such allegation is made
against the present appellant. It is further contended that the subsequent
statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. constitutes an
improvement over the FIR by attributing caste-based abuse to all the
accused persons. It is also argued that the medical examination having
CRLA No. 8006 of 2026
2

been conducted prior to the registration of the FIR creates a serious doubt
regarding the prosecution case, which renders the impugned order
unsustainable.

6. Learned AGA, opposing the appeal, submits that the FIR specifically
names all the appellants and attributes to them the acts of assault and
abuse, resulting in injuries to the victim. It is further contended that the
victim, in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., has clearly
reiterated the role of all the accused persons, including the allegation that
they used casteist slurs with the intention of humiliating him on account
of his belonging to SC/ST category. The medical report corroborates the
occurrence by disclosing multiple injuries, and the contention regarding
the preparation of the injury report prior to registration of the FIR is a
matter of evidence to be examined during trial. It is, therefore, submitted
that no interference with the impugned order is warranted.

7. In the FIR, accused-appellants Kallu Tiwari, Shashank Upadhyay and
Akhilesh Srivas, along with one unknown person, have been named. The
allegations in the FIR are that all the accused persons abused the victim
by using derogatory language and assaulted him, causing injuries. The
contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, so far as the
allegation of caste-based abuse is concerned, the same is specifically
attributed only to accused-appellants Kallu Tiwari and Shashank
Upadhyay in the FIR. However, during the course of investigation, the
statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., wherein
he specifically disclosed the role of each accused in causing injuries as
well as in using casteist slurs against him. The victim further clarified that
the real name of accused-appellant as Ankit alias Akhilesh Srivastava,
which fact was not known at the time of lodging of the FIR. In his
statement, the victim categorically stated that all the accused persons had
used casteist slurs with the intention of insulting and humiliating him on
the ground that he belongs to SC/ST category.

8. The medical report available on record discloses six injuries in the
nature of abrasions and contusions. It is true that the medical examination
was conducted on 18.12.2025, the very same day on which the incident
allegedly occurred, and before the registration of the FIR. The effect of
CRLA No. 8006 of 2026
3

preparation of the medical report prior to registration of the FIR is a
matter to be considered by the trial court during the course of trial. At the
stage of taking cognizance, the trial court is not required to meticulously
examine or appreciate the evidence as if conducting a trial. The only
question to be considered at this stage is whether the material available on
record discloses a prima facie case against the accused persons.

9. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly summoned the accused-appellant under the aforesaid
provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

10. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

11. The appellant is directed to appear before 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 as well as this Court 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.

14. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
concerned within 48 hours.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
RA

Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…